mautic_add_contact_dnc

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true and openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured fields. The description adds the dry-run gate, which is a genuine behavioral trait the agent must know before invoking, but it does not say what a dry-run returns, whether the contact must already exist, or what happens if an entry already exists for that channel.

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?

Three compact sentences with the core purpose front-loaded, followed by endpoint, parameter hints, and the dry-run caveat. The endpoint path is mildly redundant with the title but earns its place by pinning the exact resource path; no filler sentences.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with a dry-run mode and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it writes, the reason vocabulary, the channelId purpose, and the confirm gate. Remaining gaps (dry-run response shape, contact-existence preconditions, duplicate handling) are modest and partly covered by annotations.

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 coverage is 67%, and the description largely restates what the schema already documents: the reason code mapping (1 unsubscribed, 2 bounced, 3 manual) and the channelId role are duplicated verbatim from the property descriptions. For the undescribed parameter, comments, the description adds no meaning beyond the name. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource ("Add a do-not-contact entry") and reinforces it with the concrete endpoint POST /api/contacts/{id}/dnc/{channel}/add, so the mutation target is unambiguous. Siblings like mautic_remove_contact_dnc and mautic_check_contact_dnc are only implicitly distinguished by the verb; the description never names them.

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 by the verb and the dry-run note ("Omit confirm for a dry-run preview"), which tells the agent how to do a safe rehearsal before writing. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer mautic_check_contact_dnc first, or when this tool should not be used, so the agent must infer routing from sibling names.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.