delete_candidatePermanently delete a job application in Homerun ATS for GDPR erasure requests. Irreversible; requires explicit user confirmation before execution.
Permanently delete a job application (e.g. GDPR erasure request). Irreversible: only call after explicit user confirmation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_application_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond them: the deletion is permanent/irreversible and demands explicit user confirmation, which raises the behavioral bar well above the annotations alone.
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 tight sentences with zero filler. The irreversible nature and confirmation requirement are front-loaded, so the most consequential information is read first.
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 one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema and annotations covering the safety flags, the description supplies the key missing pieces: permanence and confirmation gating. Only minor gaps remain (no mention of cascade effects or what success looks like).
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 0%, so the description is expected to carry parameter meaning, yet it says nothing about job_application_id. The single parameter is self-explanatory by name, limiting the damage, but no compensating detail (format, where the ID comes from) is offered.
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?
States a specific verb ('Permanently delete') and resource ('a job application'), clarifying that the target is the job application rather than the candidate named in the tool. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like update_candidate or move_candidate, but the destructive intent is unmistakable.
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?
Provides a concrete precondition ('only call after explicit user confirmation') and a scenario that frames legitimate use ('GDPR erasure request'). It stops short of naming alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, so it lacks the full routing guidance of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.