mautic_update_contact

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description's job is to add context — and it does, by disclosing the two-phase confirm/dry-run gate and the no-upsert PATCH behavior. What it omits is whether the tags array replaces or appends to existing tags and what overwriteWithBlank actually blanks, both of which affect real data.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the dry-run note lands early where an agent will see it. The middle clause ("PATCH /api/contacts/{id}/edit so a missing ID fails rather than creating") is compressed to the point of being slightly awkward to parse, but it is information-dense 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 mutation tool with 11 parameters, a nested free-form fields object, no output schema, and very low schema description coverage, the description is thin. Critically, overwriteWithBlank can clear existing field values yet neither the description nor annotations (destructiveHint=false) warn about it, and tags behavior on repeat calls is undefined.

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 18% across 11 parameters, so the description must carry the load — but it only restates the confirm behavior already documented in the schema's confirm description. Semantics for tags (replace vs merge), fields (custom field merge behavior), overwriteWithBlank, owner, and lastActive are left entirely unexplained.

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 ("Update a contact") and adds the PATCH path semantic — a missing ID fails rather than creating — which implicitly separates it from mautic_create_contact. It does not name a sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the create-vs-update boundary, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

"Omit confirm for a dry-run preview" gives procedural guidance on how to invoke safely, which is useful. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives (e.g., mautic_add_contact_tags vs the tags parameter here, or mautic_change_contact_stage vs fields), and no stated prerequisites such as required permissions.

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