Rotate a job webhook's signing secret (zero-downtime). Returns the new signing_secret once; the previous secret stays valid for a grace window so deliveries are not dropped while you switch over.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Job ID (numeric) or alias | |
| webhook_id | Yes | Webhook ID whose signing secret to rotate |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds value beyond annotations by explaining the zero-downtime behavior and grace window. Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description clarifies that the previous secret remains valid temporarily, mitigating immediate destruction concerns.
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 with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core action and key property (zero-downtime), and the second explains the behavioral implication: the grace window for safe transitions.
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 low parameter count, complete schema coverage, and presence of annotations, the description is fairly complete. It explains the return value (new signing_secret) and the grace window, which compensates for the lack of an output schema.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning to parameters (id, webhook_id) beyond what the schema provides.
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 (rotate), the resource (job webhook's signing secret), and a key feature (zero-downtime). It distinguishes from sibling tools like hires_create_job_webhook and hires_rotate_webhook_secret by specifying the job webhook context.
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 when to use this tool (for zero-downtime rotation) and mentions the grace window for safe switchover. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling tool hires_rotate_webhook_secret, which likely handles non-job webhooks.
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.
