Permanently delete a job and its application from the board. Confirm with the user first; it cannot be undone. To hide a job without recording a rejection or closure, use jobs.archive instead.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes | Job id | |
| confirmed | Yes | Must be true after the user confirms permanent deletion |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| message | Yes | Human-readable confirmation of the action |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the destructiveHint and readOnlyHint annotations, the description adds key behavioral context: the deletion is permanent, affects both the job and its application, cannot be undone, and requires user confirmation. This materially helps an agent understand the consequences of invoking the tool.
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?
Two sentences carry all essential information with no filler. The destructive consequence and confirmation requirement are front-loaded, and the alternative tool is mentioned succinctly in the second sentence.
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 simple destructive tool with two well-documented parameters, a rich annotation set, and an output schema, the description covers the critical operational context: irreversibility, cascade effect, confirmation requirement, and the relevant alternative. Nothing essential is missing.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both job_id and confirmed already described in the input schema. The description reinforces the deletion behavior but adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'permanently delete a job and its application from the board.' It also differentiates itself from the sibling jobs.archive by explicitly naming the alternative usage, making the tool's scope unmistakable.
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?
It gives a clear when-to-use instruction: confirm with the user first, and it explicitly tells the agent to use jobs.archive instead when the intent is to hide a job without recording a rejection or closure. This is direct guidance for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The tools are largely distinct due to the domain-prefixed naming (inbox, jobs, signals, etc.) and detailed descriptions. While there is some overlap among inbox actions like acknowledge, apply_suggestion, and decline, the descriptions clarify each behavior. The signals and recommendations sub-groups also have clear boundaries, making misselection unlikely.
All tools follow a consistent pattern of domain.entity.action or domain.action (e.g., inbox.list, jobs.interviews.add, signals.recommendations.dismiss). This uniform camelCase-with-dots convention makes the set highly predictable and easy to navigate.
At 55 tools, the server far exceeds the 25-tool threshold for 'too many' as per the calibration. While the broad domain of job search management justifies numerous operations, the count is still overwhelming and could overwhelm agents or cause selection errors. Several signal-related tools could potentially be consolidated without compromising functionality.
The tool set covers the full lifecycle of job applications: inbox management (list, get, draft, send), job tracking (add, update, archive, delete), interviews (add, update, delete), offers (create, update, accept, decline, negotiation), and company signals (track, pause, recommend, block). There are no obvious missing operations for the core workflows.
