mautic_remove_contact_dnc

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the genuinely useful dry-run/confirm gate and the HTTP method, but it omits the business consequence: removing a DNC entry re-enables marketing sends to that contact on that channel, which is the single most important thing an agent should know here.

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, then the safety gate — nothing is buried. The endpoint path is somewhat redundant given the tool name, but it earns its place by fixing the channel path parameter's meaning.

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 three-parameter mutation with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description plus annotations give an agent enough to invoke it correctly, including the dry-run-first pattern. The gap is the missing consequence of the removal and any note about confirming an existing DNC entry before calling.

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 33%, and the one documented parameter (confirm) already has a thorough schema description that covers the const-true rule and false/string-true rejection; the description only restates the dry-run half of it. The two required parameters, contact_id and channel, receive no added meaning beyond the enum listing, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Remove a do-not-contact entry') and pairs it with the exact endpoint, so an agent can immediately tell it apart from sibling mautic_add_contact_dnc and mautic_check_contact_dnc. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, but the add/check/remove triad is unambiguous from the language.

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?

It gives one concrete workflow instruction — omit confirm to get a dry-run preview — which is real when-to-use guidance for a destructive call. It never states preconditions (does a DNC entry need to exist first?), nor does it point to mautic_check_contact_dnc as the way to verify state before removing.

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