Deactivate selected board publications for a job. Stops the job from being listed on specified boards.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Job ID (numeric) or alias | |
| boards | No | Array of board identifiers to deactivate (e.g. ['indeed', 'linkedin']) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description confirms this by stating 'deactivate' and 'stops listing.' However, it adds little beyond the annotation, not disclosing whether the action is reversible, permission requirements, or side effects.
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 consists of two concise sentences that directly convey the purpose without extraneous information. Every word adds value, achieving high efficiency.
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, the description covers the basic functionality. However, it omits details such as what happens if the boards are not published, error handling, or return value, given no output schema. It is adequate but not comprehensive.
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 parameters adequately described in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, maintaining the baseline score. No contradiction or additional clarity needed.
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 ('Deactivate') and the resource ('selected board publications for a job'), and specifies the effect: stopping listing on specified boards. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like hires_publish_to_job_board and hires_batch_remove_from_boards by focusing on individual job board deactivation.
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, such as the batch version hires_batch_remove_from_boards. It lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., job must be published) or scenarios where this tool is appropriate.
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.
