mautic_adjust_contact_points

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive open-world write, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the dry-run mechanic and endpoint mapping, but that mechanic largely duplicates the schema's confirm field text, and it omits meaningful side effects such as whether point changes can fire point triggers/campaign events.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the endpoint mapping, then the critical dry-run rule. No filler or redundant phrasing.

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 no output schema and thin schema descriptions, the definition covers the essentials for a correct call (operation, points, dry-run confirm). It leaves gaps around return payload, bounds/negative totals, and downstream side effects that an agent would need to act confidently.

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 only 17% (only confirm is documented), so the description must compensate and does so partially: it names eventName and actionName as optional and implies operation/points via the plus/minus endpoints. However it never explains what eventName and actionName actually represent in point-change records, nor the contact_id path binding.

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?

Specific verb pair (add/subtract) applied to a specific resource (contact points), with the underlying endpoints spelled out. No sibling tool manipulates points, so differentiation is implicitly clear, but the description never names an alternative to reinforce that.

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 two-endpoint phrasing and the 'Omit confirm for a dry-run preview' instruction, which is genuinely helpful invocation guidance. There is no explicit statement of prerequisites (e.g. contact must exist) or when to prefer this over directly updating a contact.

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