ghl_remove_contact_from_workflow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the core action without mentioning side effects, reversibility, required permissions, idempotency, or response behavior. For a removal/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 a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. However, its brevity contributes to the lack of detail in other dimensions, so it is not maximally effective.

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?

The tool operates without annotations or an output schema, and the description is minimal. Given the mutation nature, it should disclose prerequisites (e.g., valid contactId/workflowId), expected outcome, and error behavior. As it stands, the description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's context.

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 only 50% of parameters: workflowId has a description, contactId does not. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, and it fails to compensate for the undocumented contactId parameter.

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 uses the specific verb 'Remove' with a clear resource 'a contact from a GHL workflow/automation'. This unambiguously states the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'ghl_add_contact_to_workflow' and 'ghl_remove_contact_tags'.

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 the usage context: you need a contactId and workflowId to remove a contact from a workflow. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The implication is clear but not elaborated.

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