Merge GoHighLevel Contacts By Deleting Loser

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive (destructiveHint: true). The description adds behavioral steps: reading contacts, checking loser history, deleting, and updating. This goes beyond annotations, but does not fully detail error states or side effects (e.g., what happens if preflight checks fail).

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 sentences, front-loading the purpose and including the key confirmation requirement. Every word is necessary; no fluff.

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 has no output schema, but the description mentions 'Preview or execute' and the response_format parameter suggests outputs vary. However, it does not describe preview contents or error handling, leaving some gaps. Still, given sibling tools and annotations, it is mostly 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?

With 100% schema coverage, each parameter is already described. The description adds process-level meaning (e.g., 'check loser history' and 'update survivor with loser email') that clarifies the role of parameters beyond their individual descriptions.

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's purpose: a multi-step merge workaround that reads contacts, checks loser history, deletes loser, and updates survivor. It explicitly distinguishes from related tools like ghl_delete_contact or ghl_update_contact by framing it as a 'merge workaround'.

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 notes the confirm flag requirement for execution and implies a preview mode when false. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools, but the phrase 'merge workaround' provides sufficient context for the intended use case.

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