mautic_remove_contact_from_segment

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 dry-run preview is a genuinely useful behavioral note, though it also appears in the confirm parameter's schema description, and the description never clarifies that this only detaches the contact from a segment rather than deleting the contact itself.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the dry-run caveat immediately after. The raw endpoint path is somewhat redundant with the tool name but does confirm the exact route, so it is defensible rather than wasteful.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers the action and the dry-run escape hatch but omits what the preview or execution returns and what state the contact remains in afterward. An agent can call it correctly but lacks confirmation of the resulting side effects.

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 33%, but segment_id and contact_id are self-explanatory identifiers requiring little elaboration. The confirm dry-run semantics are fully documented in the schema itself, so the description adds little parameter meaning beyond what structured fields already provide.

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 contact from a segment') and includes the underlying endpoint, so the operation is unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast itself with mautic_add_contact_to_segment, but the add/remove distinction is inherent enough that an agent can select correctly.

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 only guidance offered is 'Omit confirm for a dry-run preview,' which explains how to invoke the tool safely but not when to prefer it over a sibling such as mautic_remove_contact_from_campaign or mautic_update_contact. Usage is implied rather than stated against alternatives.

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