Transfer an application to another job. A new application is created on the target job. Optionally specify a stage on the target job's pipeline.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Application ID to transfer. | |
| job_id | Yes | Target job ID to transfer the application to. | |
| include | No | Comma-separated relations to embed: candidate, cv.text, job. | |
| stage_id | No | Pipeline stage ID on the target job. If omitted, defaults to the first stage. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which are consistent with the description. The description adds context that a new application is created, which is a behavioral trait beyond annotations. However, it does not specify whether the original application is deleted or retained, leaving some ambiguity.
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 sentences, front-loading the primary action and then adding the optional stage detail. Every sentence is necessary and concise, 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?
The description covers the core transfer action and optional stage, but lacks details about the original application's fate (e.g., is it deactivated?), return values, or any prerequisites. Given the absence of an output schema and the tool's mutation nature, some extra context would be beneficial.
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 all parameters. The description adds value by summarizing the optional stage_id parameter ('Optionally specify a stage'), but does not elaborate on other parameters beyond what the schema already provides. Thus, it meets the baseline expectation.
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 tool transfers an application to another job, creating a new application on the target job. The verb 'transfer' and resource 'application' are specific, and the scope distinguishes it from creating or moving applications within the same job, aligning with the sibling 'hires_move_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 basic guidance on optionally specifying a stage on the target job's pipeline, but it does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'hires_move_application' or 'hires_create_application'. 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.
