cancel_subscriptionCancel the Pro subscription at the end of the current billing period. Access stays until then. Irreversible from here; the person can resubscribe later.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description adds valuable behavioral context: access remains until the billing period ends, the action is irreversible from this tool, and the user can resubscribe later. This meaningfully clarifies the consequences of invocation.
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?
Three short sentences deliver all essential information with no filler. The most important fact (cancellation at period end) is front-loaded, and each subsequent sentence adds distinct value.
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 parameterless destructive action with no output schema, the description fully covers what happens, when it happens, what the user retains until then, and the post-cancellation possibility. Nothing critical is missing.
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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is no parameter meaning to add. The description correctly avoids inventing parameter-related details, matching the baseline for a zero-parameter tool.
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 ('Cancel'), the specific resource ('the Pro subscription'), and the timing ('at the end of the current billing period'). It also distinguishes itself from billing-related siblings like get_billing_portal_link by making the cancellation semantics explicit.
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 clear contextual guidance: cancellation happens at period end and access persists until then. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is strong enough for an agent to select this over read-only billing tools.
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.
Tool purposes are generally distinct and well-described, but a few clusters overlap in function: answer_screening_question vs save_answer both write to the answer book, get_my_profile vs get_account both report plan status, and the CV preview/sent-CV/base-CV tools could be confused. The detailed descriptions mitigate most misselection, so this is only a minor issue.
The set almost uniformly uses snake_case verb_noun names like list_, get_, update_, create_, delete_, and start_/stop_. Minor deviations such as login, describe_what_i_want, and the get_my_* vs list_* alternation prevent a perfect score, but the overall pattern is predictable and readable.
49 tools is far above the 25+ threshold and will burden agent tool selection even though many are legitimate single-purpose operations. Several groups could be consolidated—billing links, API-key management, and the CV PDF family—without hurting clarity.
The surface covers the full lifecycle: account creation/auth, profile and CV, targeting, matching, apply runs, screening answers, tracking, billing, export, and deletion. Minor gaps remain, such as no application-level detail/withdrawal endpoint and no direct way to save a parsed CV without re-uploading, but agents can work around them.