mautic_create_contact

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the two-phase write pattern where omitting confirm yields a dry-run preview and only boolean true executes. It does not disclose what the write returns (created id?) or whether duplicate emails fail, which would complete the picture.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core action comes first and the safety mechanic follows. The raw endpoint path adds little for an agent but costs almost nothing. Density is good, though it is arguably terse to the point of under-specifying a 10-parameter tool.

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 create/write tool with 10 params, a nested free-form fields object, and no output schema, the description is thin. It answers the execute-vs-preview question but leaves the agent guessing about payload shape, required data, collision behavior on existing emails, and what comes back after a successful create.

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 10% across 10 parameters, so the description carries a heavy burden and largely fails it. It explains only confirm — which the schema already documents in detail — and says nothing about fields (the nested object), overwriteWithBlank, owner, tags, lastActive, or ipAddress, leaving the most confusing parameters unelaborated.

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 ('Create a contact') and even names the underlying endpoint (POST /api/contacts/new), which unambiguously separates it from mautic_update_contact in the sibling list. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with update/search siblings, but the create semantics leave little ambiguity.

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?

Provides concrete operational guidance for the confirm/dry-run choice ('Omit confirm for a dry-run preview'), which is the main decision an agent faces at call time. However, it gives no guidance on when to create versus updating an existing contact, no duplicate-email handling advice, and no note on prerequisites such as which fields Mautic actually requires (schema lists zero required params).

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