Update multiple jobs at once by deleting, rejecting, or advancing them to the next stage using job IDs and a selected action.
Perform bulk operations on multiple jobs at once: delete, reject, or advance to next stage.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | Action to perform: delete (remove), reject (mark as not a fit), proceed (advance to next stage) | |
| job_ids | Yes | Array of job IDs to update |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.2.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it does not disclose that 'delete' is irreversible, whether 'reject' or 'proceed' can be undone, what permissions are required, or how partial failures across the job_ids array are handled. For a destructive bulk mutation this is a meaningful omission.
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?
One tight sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with operations listed after the colon. Nothing is wasted, though it is arguably too short given the destructive operations it wraps.
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?
A bulk, partly destructive mutation invoked across many job IDs with no annotations and no output schema should explain irreversibility, permissions, and partial-failure semantics. None of that is present, so the agent lacks what it needs to call this safely.
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% and the action enum values are fully documented in the schema itself; the description merely restates 'delete, reject, or advance to next stage'. No additional syntax, ID format, or batching-limit detail is added, so baseline 3 applies.
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 (bulk update) and resource (jobs) and enumerates the three supported operations, so the agent knows exactly what it does. It does not distinguish itself from the single-job siblings (delete_job, update_job_status), leaving the agent to infer that this is the batch variant.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus delete_job, update_job_status, or reject flows. The word 'bulk' implies multi-job use, but there is no explicit when/when-not or mention of prerequisites such as job ownership or state restrictions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.