contacts_add_contact_to_campaign

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

The annotations indicate the tool is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false), not idempotent (idempotentHint=false), and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds no behavioral context beyond what the annotations already convey. It does not describe side effects, permissions, rate limits, or what happens to the contact or campaign after the add operation. With annotations carrying the safety profile, the description still provides no extra value.

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?

The description is a single sentence with no extraneous words, which is concise. However, it is so minimal that it borders on under-specification rather than efficient communication. It lacks any detail that would justify its brevity; the content is merely a paraphrase of the name.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (three parameters, one being a nested request body) and lack of output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what a successful response looks like, potential error conditions, or any required preconditions (e.g., contact and campaign must exist). An agent would have to rely solely on the schema and general knowledge, which is insufficient for a mutation operation.

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 100% with each parameter having a basic description (contactId: 'Contact Id', campaignId: 'Campaigns Id', body: 'Request body as defined by the HighLevel API.'). The tool description adds no further meaning to these parameters, so it does not enhance the schema's explanation. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents them adequately.

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 'Add Contact to Campaign' clearly states the verb and resource, but it is essentially a restatement of the tool name with no additional detail. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'contacts_add_contact_to_workflow' or 'contacts_add_tags', so it lacks the specificity needed for an agent to choose this over alternatives without inspecting the schema.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions under which this tool should be preferred. The openWorldHint and other annotations give minimal context but the description offers nothing to help an agent decide when to call it.

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