Permanently delete the offer recorded for a job (the job stays). Use only to fix a mistake, and confirm with the user first; it cannot be undone.
| 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?
The annotations already include destructiveHint: true and idempotentHint: true, but the description adds meaningful context beyond that: it states the deletion is permanent ('cannot be undone'), clarifies that the job record remains, and reiterates the need for user confirmation. This provides a fuller picture of the operation's consequences.
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 two short, purposeful sentences. The first sentence states the action and scope; the second provides usage conditions and consequences. There is no redundancy or fluff; every clause earns its place.
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 two-parameter destructive tool, the description covers all necessary aspects: what is deleted, what is preserved, when to use it, the requirement for confirmation, and irreversibility. The output schema exists to explain return values, and the annotations handle the safety profile. Nothing important 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?
The schema already describes both job_id ('Job id') and confirmed ('Must be true after the user confirms permanent deletion') with 100% coverage. The description does not add new details about the parameters beyond reinforcing that confirmation is required, which is already in the schema. Hence the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 verb 'delete' and the resource 'offer recorded for a job', and explicitly notes 'the job stays' to distinguish from jobs.delete. This unambiguously identifies what the tool does and differentiates it from sibling tools like jobs.delete or jobs.offer.update.
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 explicit usage context: 'Use only to fix a mistake, and confirm with the user first'. This tells the agent when it is appropriate to call the tool and imposes a confirmation requirement. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the condition covers the main decision point.
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.
