Permanently delete a job application by campaign and slug, removing its folder, metadata, index, and sidecars.
Permanently remove an application folder — cleans metadata, index, and sidecars
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Application slug | |
| confirm | No | Skip confirmation prompt | |
| campaign | Yes | Campaign name (e.g. "default") |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that removal is permanent and enumerates what gets cleaned (metadata, index, sidecars), but it says nothing about downstream effects on tracked applications/interviews or how the 'confirm' skip-prompt parameter interacts with the deletion flow.
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?
A single compact sentence with the destructive verb and scope front-loaded. No filler, though it packs the cleanup list into one clause without room for the operational warnings an agent would want.
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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and permanence but omits the confirmation-prompt behavior implied by 'confirm' and any indication of what a call returns or errors on.
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%, so the schema already documents slug, campaign, and confirm. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond confirming the destructive nature, so the baseline of 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?
Specifies verb (remove), resource (application folder), and scope (permanently, plus metadata/index/sidecars). It is clearly distinct from siblings like rename_application or remove_campaign, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this versus alternatives such as remove_campaign, nor any prerequisites or warnings about the operation being irreversible beyond the word 'permanently'. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.