Update a scheduled notification email before it is sent. Change subject, body, and optionally reschedule the send time. Only scheduled (not yet sent) messages can be updated.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Notification email message ID. | |
| body | Yes | Email body as HTML. | |
| subject | Yes | Email subject line. | |
| scheduled_at | No | Unix timestamp (seconds) to reschedule send time. If omitted, the existing schedule is preserved. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true. The description adds context that this tool is for scheduled notification emails and that updates are only allowed before sending. It discloses the limitations (not yet sent) and the optional rescheduling behavior, adding value beyond annotations.
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 two sentences, highly concise, and front-loaded with the action and resource. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy.
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 that there is no output schema, the description adequately covers preconditions (scheduled, not sent), mutable fields (subject, body, schedule), and a key constraint. It does not describe return values, but for a mutation tool this is acceptable. Annotations and schema enrich the context.
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 baseline is 3. The description mentions 'subject, body, and optionally reschedule the send time', which aligns with the schema parameters but adds no new semantic details beyond what the schema descriptions already provide.
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 'Update' and the resource 'a scheduled notification email before it is sent'. It specifies what can be changed (subject, body, and optionally send time) and distinguishes from siblings by noting the 'scheduled (not yet sent)' condition, which implies other tools handle sent or unscheduled messages.
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 an explicit condition: 'Only scheduled (not yet sent) messages can be updated.' This guides the agent when to call this tool versus other update tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use it beyond that condition.
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.
