ghl_trigger_workflow

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a required scope, states that every call is governed by Arbiter constitutional policy, and mentions the ProofLink receipt sealing. This goes beyond a simple 'triggers a workflow' statement, though it does not detail failure behavior or response format.

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 with the main action front-loaded. Every word earns its place—no filler, no redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a simple two-parameter tool.

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 description covers the core action and side effects but does not mention the return value or any response format, and there is no output schema. For a tool that seals a receipt, the agent might need to know what the receipt is or how it is returned. The lack of this detail is a clear gap for full invokability.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It implies that 'workflow_id' identifies the workflow and 'contact_id' the contact, but it does not explicitly define each parameter or provide format/context. The meaning is partially conveyed, but not enough to fully compensate for the lack of schema 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 action ('Trigger') and the resource ('GHL workflow for a contact'), distinguishing it from sibling GHL tools like ghl_create_contact or ghl_move_pipeline. It also mentions the ProofLink receipt, which adds specificity about the tool's unique side effect.

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 clear context: this tool is for triggering a workflow on a contact. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the clear action and resource imply its usage scope relative to other GHL tools.

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