Add Contact to Workflow

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it is a non-destructive write operation. However, the description adds no extra behavioral context such as whether the contact must already exist, side effects on workflow enrollment, or duplicate handling. No contradiction with annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence: 'Add a contact to a GHL workflow/automation.' Every word earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy. This is exemplary conciseness.

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 is simple with only two required parameters and no output schema. Annotations cover idempotency and write semantics, and the schema documents the parameters fully. The description, while minimal, is adequate for this low-complexity operation, though it could benefit from a hint about return behavior or exceptions.

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 already provides descriptions for both parameters (contactId as 'Contact ID', workflowId as 'Workflow ID to add contact to'), yielding 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning or clarification beyond restating the action, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ("Add") and identifies both the resource (contact) and the target (GHL workflow/automation). It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool ghl_remove_contact_from_workflow, so there is no ambiguity about its function.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or the contrasting remove tool in the description. The agent must rely entirely on the name and sibling list to infer usage context.

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