Greenhouse MCP

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions that 'forward' action_type requires action_url, it doesn't address important behavioral aspects: whether this is a mutating operation (likely yes, but not stated), what permissions are needed, whether there are rate limits, what happens on success/failure, or what the output contains. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise with just two sentences that pack substantial information. Every word earns its place: the first sentence states the purpose and key parameter semantics, the second explains action_type options and their requirements. There's zero wasted text, and the information is front-loaded effectively.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage but an output schema exists, the description does well on parameter semantics but lacks behavioral context. For a creation tool with no annotations, it should address mutation implications, permissions, or typical outcomes. The existence of an output schema means return values are documented elsewhere, but the description could better prepare the agent for using this tool effectively.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it does so excellently. It explains event_type can be specific or '*' for all events, clarifies action_type has two options ('forward' or 'log'), and specifies that 'forward' requires action_url. This adds crucial semantic meaning beyond the bare schema, covering 3 of the 5 parameters meaningfully.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the specific action ('Create a webhook routing rule') and identifies the resource being created. It distinguishes from sibling tools like webhook_delete_rule, webhook_update_rule, and webhook_list_rules by specifying this is a creation operation. The description goes beyond just restating the name by explaining what kind of rule is being created.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides some implied usage guidance by explaining parameter semantics (event_type can be '*' for all events, action_type options and their requirements). However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like webhook_update_rule or webhook_delete_rule, nor does it mention prerequisites or typical use cases for creating routing rules.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.