withdraw_applicationWithdraw one of your submitted job applications by its application id. This action cannot be undone from here.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| applicationId | Yes | Application identifier, as returned by get_my_applications. Only applications with isWithdrawable true can be withdrawn via this tool |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| withdrawn | Yes | ||
| applicationId | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true. The description adds value beyond these by explicitly stating that the action 'cannot be undone from here,' alerting the agent to irreversibility. It also scopes the operation to submitted applications, providing useful behavioral context without contradicting the 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?
Two short sentences deliver the essential information: what the tool withdraws, how the target is identified, and the critical irreversibility warning. Every sentence earns its place, and the key verb is front-loaded.
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 simple one-parameter destructive tool, the combination of the main description, detailed parameter schema, destructiveHint annotation, and output schema is sufficient for correct invocation. The irreversibility warning compensates for the tool's destructive nature, and no critical missing guidance is apparent.
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 description coverage is 100%: the input schema already explains that applicationId comes from get_my_applications and that only applications with isWithdrawable true can be withdrawn. The main description only restates 'by its application id,' adding minimal semantic value beyond the schema.
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 uses a specific verb ('Withdraw'), a concrete resource ('submitted job applications'), and identifies the key parameter ('by its application id'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling getter tools and update_my_profile, leaving no ambiguity about its function.
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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when the user wants to withdraw one of their already submitted applications. It also adds a caution that the action cannot be undone. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but there are no direct sibling alternatives for withdrawal, and the input schema further constrains usage to withdrawable applications.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action, with clear boundaries between search, recommendations, and recent searches. The descriptions resolve any potential overlap, making misselection unlikely.
All tool names follow a consistent action_noun pattern in snake_case. Get operations use 'get_', while update, withdraw, and search operations use their respective verbs, maintaining a predictable convention.
With 10 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose, covering job search, application management, and profile handling without unnecessary bloat or a thin surface.
The toolset covers job search, job details, profile retrieval/update, and application withdrawal. However, there is no direct 'apply' tool, which is a notable gap in a job-focused server, though agents can work around it via external links.