Remove contact from workflow

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false (mutation) and idempotentHint=true. The description adds the behavioral detail that removal halts the workflow for the contact, which is useful context beyond the annotations. It does not contradict 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?

A single sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and effect, and every word 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 tool with 2 required parameters, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to explain the parameters or any edge cases. It is minimal and leaves the agent to guess parameter semantics, making it incomplete despite the tool's simplicity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not explain what contactId and workflowId represent beyond the parameter names. The description only states the action, leaving parameter semantics to be inferred from the names, which is insufficient given zero 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 ('Remove') and resource ('contact from an automation workflow'), and adds the effect ('halting it for them'). It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like ghl_add_contact_to_workflow by the opposite action, though it does not explicitly name the alternative.

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 implies usage: use when you want to halt a contact's workflow. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when not to use it, prerequisites, or alternatives. It does not mention the companion add tool or any conditions.

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