Remove a saved job from your job list by specifying its job ID. Use when you need to delete a tracked job from your job search workflow.
Delete a saved job. Use this when the user wants to remove a job from their list.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes | The job ID to delete |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.2.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden for a destructive operation, and it does not say whether the deletion is permanent or reversible, whether confirmation is required, or what happens to associated notes, evaluations, and cover letters tied to the job. It discloses none of the side effects an agent needs to warn the user about.
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, purpose front-loaded before the usage clause, with no filler. It is tight, though the second sentence is generic enough that it borders on restating the obvious.
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 destructive, unannotated, single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description omits the information that matters most: irreversibility, what related data is affected, and confirmation behavior. The basic "what" is covered but the risk profile is not.
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% and the single job_id parameter is documented in the schema, so the description need not repeat it. It adds no syntax, format, or identifier-sourcing guidance beyond the schema, which is the baseline-3 case.
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 and resource ("Delete a saved job") and the qualifier "saved" distinguishes it from neighboring deletion tools like delete_schedule, delete_document, and delete_job_note. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with the closest sibling delete_job_note or bulk deletion paths, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.
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?
"Use this when the user wants to remove a job from their list" gives an implied trigger condition, which is more than nothing. But it offers no exclusions or alternatives — e.g. when to prefer delete_job_note, delete_all_schedules, or bulk operations — leaving the agent to infer routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.