Enroll one or more contacts into an email sequence, automatically skipping contacts already enrolled.
Enroll one or more contacts into an email sequence. Skips contacts already enrolled.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| contactIds | Yes | Array of contact UUIDs to enroll | |
| sequenceId | Yes | Sequence UUID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.71.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. 'Skips contacts already enrolled' is a genuinely useful disclosure about idempotent-style behavior, but it omits what enrollment actually triggers (immediate send?), what happens with invalid or duplicate contact IDs within the array, required permissions, and partial-failure semantics for a bulk mutation.
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 zero padding; the core action is front-loaded and the behavioral caveat follows immediately. Nothing extraneous.
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 simple two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the core action and one key behavior. It still leaves an agent guessing about error handling, permissions, and whether enrollment produces immediate emails — meaningful gaps for a write operation with external side effects.
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% — both sequenceId and contactIds are documented as UUIDs. The description confirms the array is multi-valued ('one or more contacts') and that the sequence is an email sequence, but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the 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 (enroll) and resource (contacts into an email sequence), so an agent can tell this apart from conduyt_add_tags or conduyt_create_contact. It does not, however, distinguish itself from adjacent sequence siblings like conduyt_unenroll_from_sequence or the drip-enrollment tools beyond the word 'email'.
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 only implied by the verb 'enroll' — there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus conduyt_unenroll_from_sequence, conduyt_create_sequence, or a drip campaign enrollment. No prerequisites (e.g. sequence must be published/active) or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.