mautic_send_email_to_segment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the underlying endpoint and the dry-run mechanism via omitting confirm, which an agent could not infer from annotations. It still omits the key consequence — that a confirmed call actually dispatches email to every contact in the target lists and cannot be undone — plus any permission or rate-limit notes.

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 fragments, front-loaded with the action, then the endpoint, then the dry-run caveat. No filler sentences and nothing is buried.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and partial schema coverage, the description covers the mechanics (endpoint, optional listIds, dry-run) but leaves the agent without the outcome semantics: whether emails are actually delivered, what the response contains, and what errors arise if the email is unpublished or the lists are invalid.

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% (only confirm is documented in the schema), so the description must carry weight. It clarifies that listIds is optional and that {id} is the email id, implying listIds narrows the send to specific lists, but never explains what happens when listIds is omitted (send to all of the email's lists) or the meaning/limits of the id formats.

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 a segment email to its lists', which implicitly separates it from the sibling mautic_send_email_to_contact (contact vs. segment targeting). The sibling is not named explicitly, and 'segment email' vs. plain email isn't disambiguated against mautic_get_email or mautic_list_emails, so it falls short of 5.

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 line 'Omit confirm for a dry-run preview' gives a concrete precondition for a safe trial call, which is genuinely useful usage guidance. However, there is no statement of when to use this tool versus mautic_send_email_to_contact, nor any prerequisite such as the email being published or being of segment type.

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