Change a job opening's status across stages like found, applied, interview, technical test, offer, rejected, or withdrew, and add an optional dated note.
Muda o status de uma vaga (encontrada, aplicada, entrevista, teste_tecnico, oferta, recusada, desisti) e registra uma nota opcional com a data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| nota | No | ||
| status | Yes | ||
| vaga_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose the mutation ('Muda o status') and a real side effect beyond the schema — an optional note is stored with a date — but says nothing about permissions, whether the previous note is overwritten, or what happens if vaga_id is invalid.
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 tightly written sentence, front-loaded with the core action, with the parenthetical value list earning its length as the only enum documentation available. Zero filler.
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 3-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the definition covers the essentials (action, allowed statuses, note side effect) but omits error behavior, overwrite/reversibility semantics, and confirmation of what is returned.
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 must compensate. It usefully enumerates the allowed status values (critical, since the schema defines status as a free string with no enum) and clarifies that nota is optional and timestamped, but vaga_id is left unexplained. Partial but meaningful compensation.
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+resource ('Muda o status de uma vaga') and enumerates the valid status values in parentheses, so the agent knows exactly what domain action this is. It does not name or distinguish itself from siblings like registrar_vaga or listar_vagas, but the action is distinct enough to be inferred.
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?
Usage is implied: this tool applies to an already-existing vaga identified by vaga_id, in contrast to registrar_vaga (creation) or listar_vagas (read). No explicit when-to-use/when-not or reference to alternatives is given, so routing is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.