Moves an application to a specific pipeline stage for explicit stage transitions in workflow orchestration. Requires the target stage_id (available via the job's pipeline_stages).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Application ID. | |
| include | No | Comma-separated relations to embed: candidate, cv.text, job. | |
| stage_id | Yes | Target pipeline stage ID. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description repeats the mutation aspect already conveyed by destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. It adds minimal behavioral context beyond what annotations already provide, such as no mention of side effects, permissions, reversibility, or error cases.
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, consisting of two sentences that efficiently state the purpose and a key prerequisite. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.
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's destructive nature and lack of output schema, the description should inform about effects, success indicators, and potential side effects. It fails to explain what happens after a move (e.g., previous stage overwritten, history tracked). This leaves the agent with significant uncertainty.
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 100% schema coverage, the description adds value by explaining the stage_id parameter's source (pipeline_stages). However, it does not elaborate on the 'id' or 'include' parameters, leaving them to the schema. The added context is useful but limited to one parameter.
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 'moves' and resource 'application', and specifies the destination as 'specific pipeline stage'. It hints at explicit stage transitions, which helps distinguish from automated advances, but does not explicitly contrast with siblings like hires_advance_application or hires_transfer_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 provides a prerequisite by noting that the target stage_id is available via the job's pipeline_stages. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., advance, batch move, or update), and does not state when not to use it.
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.
