Disqualify a candidate from all active applications. Optionally provide rejection reason IDs. Returns affected application IDs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Candidate ID (integer) or alias (string). | |
| reasons | No | Array of rejection reason IDs from GET /taxonomy/rejection-reasons. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true. The description adds context that the tool returns affected application IDs, but does not disclose reversibility or side effects on interviews or candidate status. It adds some value but not extensive behavioral context.
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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, followed by optional input and return. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.
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 mutation tool with 2 parameters, destructive annotation, and no output schema, the description covers action, scope, optional input, and return. It lacks error conditions or prerequisites but is otherwise sufficient.
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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters (id and reasons). The description restates that reasons are optional, adding no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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 action 'disqualify', the resource 'candidate', and the scope 'from all active applications'. It also mentions optional rejection reasons and return value. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'hires_reject_application' which targets a single application.
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 implies usage when needing to disqualify a candidate from all active applications, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'hires_reject_application' or 'hires_batch_reject_applications'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes due to specific entity and action combinations. However, with 133 tools, there is some overlap (e.g., multiple ways to move applications) and similar-sounding operations (e.g., batch_remove_tags vs remove_candidate_tag) that could cause confusion. The detailed descriptions help but the sheer number increases ambiguity.
All tools follow a consistent 'hires_verb_noun' pattern with snake_case. Verbs are descriptive (create, list, get, delete, update, batch) and nouns match the domain entities (candidate, application, job, etc.). No mixing of conventions like camelCase or inconsistent verb styles.
133 tools is excessive for a typical server scope. While a full-featured ATS requires many operations, this count suggests insufficient aggregation. Tools for similar entities (e.g., multiple update/delete variants) could be consolidated. The high number overwhelms the tool surface and increases complexity.
The tool set covers core CRUD operations for major entities (candidates, applications, jobs, companies, users, messages, forms, etc.) plus batch operations, webhooks, and advanced features like AI scoring and nurture campaigns. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct reporting/analytics tools), but most workflows can be executed.
