Add contact to workflow

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the mutation/safety profile is covered. The description adds the behavioral effect that enrolling triggers the workflow for that contact. It does not elaborate on idempotency behavior, duplicate enrollments, or side effects beyond triggering, but does not contradict the 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?

Two sentences with no filler. The action and effect are stated first, followed by a useful prerequisite pointer. Every sentence earns its place.

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 enrollment action with two required IDs and an optional timestamp, the description is nearly complete. It tells the agent how to obtain one required ID, and the output schema is absent so return values need not be explained. A minor gap is the lack of explicit differentiation from campaign enrollment, but this is not essential.

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 description coverage is only 33%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to workflowId by pointing to ghl_list_workflows, while eventStartTime is already described in the schema. contactId remains self-explanatory by name but has no additional semantic guidance. Partial compensation for the low 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 states a specific verb ('Enroll') and resource ('a contact into an automation workflow'), and clarifies the effect ('triggering it for that contact'). It clearly distinguishes from the sibling remove_contact_from_workflow and is specific enough not to be confused with campaign enrollment.

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 gives a concrete usage pointer: 'Use ghl_list_workflows to find workflowId.' It provides clear context that this is for automation workflows, though it does not explicitly state exclusions such as 'use add_contact_to_campaign for campaigns' or 'use remove_contact_from_workflow to undo enrollment.'

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