mautic_send_email_to_contact

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

Annotations declare a write, non-idempotent, non-destructive, open-world operation, so the safety profile is already covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: the dry-run-by-omitting-confirm pattern, which is the key thing an agent must know before invoking a send. It stops short of saying whether a real send is irreversible or what side effects occur for the contact.

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 purpose and ending with the most actionable safety detail. Every clause carries information, though the raw endpoint string is arguably lower value than a plain statement of the resource pair.

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 mutating send tool with no output schema and an undocumented tokens object, the description covers the dry-run mechanism but not the return values (what a preview shows vs. a real send), nor how tokens are consumed by the email template. Adequate to invoke correctly, but incomplete for confident use.

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 25% (only confirm is documented in-schema). The description partially compensates by flagging tokens as optional and by mapping email_id/contact_id to their path positions, but it never explains what tokens actually do or how their keys are substituted. The compensation is thus incomplete for a nested-object parameter.

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 (send an email) plus scope (to one contact), which implicitly separates it from mautic_send_email_to_segment. It also cites the concrete endpoint path with both required IDs, so an agent knows exactly what resource pair is targeted. It does not explicitly name the segment sibling as the alternative, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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 explicit usage rule is safety-related: omit confirm for a dry-run preview. There is no guidance on when to choose this over mautic_send_email_to_segment or what preconditions exist (e.g., the email must exist and be published). Usage is implied by the name rather than explained.

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