Remove a contact from an email sequence to pause their enrollment. Specify sequence and contact IDs to unenroll.
Remove a contact from an email sequence. Pauses their enrollment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| contactId | Yes | Contact UUID to unenroll | |
| 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?
No annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and 'Pauses their enrollment' conflicts with the removal semantics implied by 'Remove' and by separate pause/resume tools in this family. It does not say whether the unenrollment is reversible, whether queued emails are cancelled, or what permissions are required.
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, front-loaded with the action and followed by the effect. Nothing is padded or repeated from the name.
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?
A mutation tool with zero annotations and no output schema needs to explain reversibility, side effects on queued sends, and expected result. Here only a two-sentence summary is provided and its second sentence is ambiguous, leaving real gaps for an agent deciding whether to call it.
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% (contactId and sequenceId are both documented as UUIDs), so the schema supplies the parameter meaning. The description adds nothing about identifier sourcing or scoping, which is acceptable at this coverage level.
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 (remove a contact from an email sequence), which cleanly distinguishes it from conduyt_enroll_in_sequence and the batch_*_enrollments siblings. It stops short of naming those alternatives explicitly, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.
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: an agent can infer 'call this to take someone out of a sequence,' but there is no statement of when to prefer it over conduyt_batch_stop_enrollments, conduyt_batch_pause_enrollments, or conduyt_cancel_drip_enrollment_barrier. No prerequisites 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.