ghl_contact_add_to_workflow

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

Annotations indicate it's a mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds no extra behavioral details, such as side effects (e.g., triggering automations) or error conditions (e.g., if contact already in workflow).

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 concise (two sentences) and includes essential technical details like the endpoint and OAuth scopes. It is front-loaded and easy to scan, though it could be slightly more structured.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description does not explain return values or expected outcomes. It also does not clarify the optional eventStartTime parameter or any post-conditions of the operation. For a mutation tool, more context is needed.

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 coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions and examples. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but since the schema already fully documents parameters, a baseline score 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 clearly states the action 'Add Contact to Workflow' and provides the endpoint. The purpose is specific enough to distinguish it from similar tools like ghl_contact_add_to_campaign or ghl_contact_add_tags, as the resource is different. However, it doesn't elaborate on what a workflow is or the exact operation performed.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to add vs. remove from workflow, or prerequisites like contact/workflow existence). The description only provides the endpoint and OAuth scopes, not usage context.

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