Undo a rejection and reopen a previously rejected application. The status returns to active and rejected_at is cleared.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Application ID. | |
| include | No | Comma-separated relations to embed: candidate, cv.text, job. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explains the behavioral effects ('status returns to active, rejected_at cleared') beyond the destructiveHint annotation. It does not mention potential side effects like notifications, but is adequate for a simple reinstatement action.
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 short sentences that immediately convey the core action and effects. No unnecessary words or repetition.
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 an undo operation with a clear effect, the description is nearly complete. It lacks mention of prerequisites (e.g., application must be rejected) and return value, but these are minor gaps given the simplicity of the tool.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the description does not need to add parameter details. It focuses on the tool's purpose rather than parameter meaning, which is acceptable given the schema completeness.
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 ('undo a rejection and reopen a previously rejected application') and specifies the resulting state changes, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'hires_reject_application' and 'hires_delete_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 the tool is for undoing rejections but does not explicitly state when to avoid using it or offer alternative tools for related operations. No exclusions are provided.
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.
