Remove Contact from Workflow

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

Annotations already convey that this is a mutating, non-destructive, idempotent operation, and the description aligns by stating 'Remove'. However, it adds no extra behavioral context—such as side effects on the contact, why removal might fail, or whether it is reversible. Given the annotations, the description meets a minimal bar but does not enrich understanding.

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, concise sentence that directly states the action and object. It is front-loaded and contains no filler, making it efficient for an agent 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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description is functionally adequate. However, it lacks details about expected response, error conditions, or any workflow-specific nuances. The agent can perform the call but may not know what to expect afterward. This is a clear gap.

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 descriptions fully cover both parameters (contactId and workflowId), so the description does not need to repeat them. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter-level meaning, and the schema already provides sufficient clarity. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 ('Remove') with a clear resource ('contact from a GHL workflow'), making its purpose unambiguous. It is distinct from sibling tools like ghl_add_contact_to_workflow, so there is no confusion.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool or when alternatives might be preferred. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., contact must be in the workflow) or contrast with related tools such as ghl_add_contact_to_workflow. The usage context is only implied by the name.

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