mautic_remove_contact_from_campaign

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the risk profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: a two-phase write pattern where omitting confirm yields a preview instead of executing. It does not say what happens on a non-member contact or whether campaign event history is affected.

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, front-loaded with the action, then the endpoint, then the safety affordance. No filler or restated naming.

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 destructive two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the definition covers the action, the endpoint and the safe dry-run path, which is enough to invoke it correctly. Minor gaps remain around idempotency semantics (already partly covered by annotations) and error behavior for contacts not in the campaign.

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 only 33%: confirm is fully documented in the schema itself (including rejection of false and the string 'true'), so the description merely restates it. campaign_id and contact_id have no descriptions anywhere; the URL template hints they are identifiers but adds no accepted-format or lookup guidance to 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Remove a contact from a campaign') and is immediately distinguishable from its sibling mautic_add_contact_to_campaign. The POST endpoint path reinforces exactly which relationship is being altered.

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?

The description gives a concrete operational rule ('Omit confirm for a dry-run preview'), which tells the agent how to call it safely. However, it never states when to choose this over adjacent tools (e.g., removing from a segment vs. a campaign) or any prerequisites such as the contact actually being a campaign member.

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