ghl_contact_add_followers

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds the OAuth scopes (contacts.write) and endpoint, but does not explain behavioral specifics such as whether followers are appended or replaced, handling of duplicates, or what the response returns. Given annotations cover safety, the description provides marginal added value.

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 brief and to the point, containing only the operation name and endpoint technical details. It is not overly verbose, but the brevity sacrifices conceptual completeness. Conciseness is acceptable but could be improved by adding key usage context in a structured way.

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?

Given that the tool is simple (2 parameters, no output schema) but has a direct sibling (ghl_contact_remove_followers) and annotations are present, the description lacks critical context: when to use over sibling, the effect on existing followers, return structure, and prerequisites. This makes it incomplete for an agent to confidently invoke.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions: contactId described as 'Contact Id' and followers as 'List of user Ids to follow or unfollow the contact'. The description does not add further semantic meaning beyond what is already in the schema, so baseline 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 clearly states the action ('Add Followers') and specifies the resource (contacts) via the endpoint. The name distinguishes from siblings like ghl_contact_remove_followers and ghl_opportunity_add_followers, though the description does not explicitly differentiate them. Still, the purpose is unambiguous.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to add vs. remove followers, or prerequisites like contact existence). The description includes only the endpoint and OAuth scopes, which are technical details, not usage context.

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