ghl_add_contact_to_workflow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention idempotency, side effects (e.g., duplicate enrollments), authorization requirements, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary action, then adds a relevant usage hint. Every word earns its place, and the structure is easy to parse.

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 simple three-parameter mutation, the description provides the core action and a useful workflow-ID hint, and the schema covers two of three parameters. However, it lacks any mention of return values, idempotency, or preconditions, which would be helpful given there is no output schema and no annotations. It is minimally viable but leaves gaps.

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 schema covers 67% of parameters (workflowId and eventStartTime). The description adds meaningful nuance by explaining that workflow IDs can be 'configured' or 'custom', which is not in the schema. However, contactId is left undocumented in both schema and description, though its purpose is inferable from the tool name.

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 action ('Enroll a contact') and resource ('a GHL workflow/automation'), distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'ghl_remove_contact_from_workflow'. The mention of 'configured workflow IDs or supply a custom one' adds specificity, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 implies when to use the tool (to enroll a contact) and the schema adds a useful cross-reference to ghl_get_workflows for discovering valid workflow IDs. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use the tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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