Greenhouse MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Update' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't specify what permissions are required, whether changes are reversible, what happens to unspecified fields, or any rate limits. It provides minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 - a single sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource. While it's too brief for adequate tool documentation, it scores perfectly on conciseness metrics.

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?

For a mutation tool with 5 parameters (0% schema coverage) and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. While an output schema exists (which helps with return values), the description doesn't address critical aspects like required permissions, side effects, or parameter semantics. Given the complexity of updating webhook routing rules, this minimal description leaves too many gaps.

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 for all 5 parameters, the description adds no information about what the parameters mean or how they should be used. It doesn't explain what 'rule_id' refers to, what 'event_type' and 'action_type' can be, what format 'action_url' should have, or what 'active' controls. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 'Update an existing webhook routing rule' clearly states the verb ('update') and resource ('webhook routing rule'), but it's somewhat vague about what specifically gets updated. It doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'webhook_create_rule' or 'webhook_delete_rule' beyond the basic action verb.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing an existing rule ID), when not to use it, or how it differs from related webhook tools like 'webhook_create_rule' or 'webhook_delete_rule'.

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