ghl_trigger_workflow

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

With no annotations, the description adds value by disclosing that the tool seals a cryptographic receipt and is governed by Arbiter policy. However, it does not clarify whether the operation is destructive, idempotent, or what side effects occur beyond sealing.

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 concise with three sentences, no fluff, and front-loaded purpose. However, the third sentence about policy could be merged for better flow.

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 absence of output schema and annotations, the description is insufficient: it does not mention return values, idempotency, or whether the workflow must be preconfigured. The governance context is useful but not complete.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description fails to explain the meaning or source of workflow_id and contact_id. It does not add practical guidance on how to obtain these IDs.

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 clearly states the tool triggers a GHL workflow for a contact, distinguishing it from sibling tools like ghl_book_appointment or ghl_create_contact. However, the mention of 'Seals a ProofLink receipt' adds some ambiguity about whether the receipt is the primary output.

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 description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions required scope but does not explain prerequisites, conditions, or context for invocation.

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