Update a job application's status to track progress through saved, applied, interview, offer, rejected, or expired stages.
Update the status of a job application. Use this when the user's application progresses (got an interview, received offer, was rejected, etc.)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes | The job ID to update | |
| status | Yes | New status for the job |
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 discloses almost nothing beyond the action itself. It does not say whether the change is reversible, whether it triggers notifications or timeline events, whether it overwrites prior status, or what happens to related fields on the application.
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 with the core action front-loaded and the usage context following. No filler or redundancy, though there is little structure beyond the two clauses.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain effects, reversibility, and result behavior, none of which appear. It conveys when to call but not what calling actually changes or returns.
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 status enum is fully enumerated, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no syntax, valid-transition, or format detail beyond the schema, warranting the baseline 3.
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 (update) and resource (status of a job application), which cleanly identifies the operation. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the closely related sibling bulk_update_jobs, so the agent must infer the distinction.
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?
Gives clear triggering context with concrete examples (got an interview, received offer, was rejected), which helps the agent recognize when this tool applies. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions, such as when to prefer bulk_update_jobs for multiple jobs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.