ghl_contact_remove_from_all_campaigns

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description confirms the destructive action ('removes the contact from every campaign') and provides OAuth scopes, but adds no additional behavioral context beyond 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?

The description is somewhat verbose with metadata (version, source, OAuth), but it front-loads the core purpose and is structured logically. Not overly long for the information provided.

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 only one required parameter, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers all necessary context effectively. It includes OAuth scopes and endpoint details, making it complete for an agent to use correctly.

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 schema has 100% coverage with one required parameter (contactId) described as 'Contact Id'. The description repeats the parameter via the endpoint path but adds no extra meaning beyond the schema.

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 tool removes a contact from every campaign, using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ghl_contact_remove_from_all_campaigns_legacy by noting it's the 'v3-preferred variant'.

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 by stating it's the preferred variant, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like ghl_contact_remove_from_campaign. No when-not or direct comparison provided.

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