ghl_contact_remove_from_all_campaigns_legacy

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

Annotations already signal destructive and idempotent hints. The description adds value by revealing the legacy status, OAuth scopes, and endpoint details (DELETE /contacts/{contactId}/campaigns/removeAll). No contradiction with 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 slightly verbose but front-loads critical information: legacy nature, equivalence, and preferred alternative. Every sentence contributes to disambiguation and usage guidance.

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 the simple single-parameter tool with good annotations, the description is fairly complete. It explains the tool's purpose, alternative, and usage context. Missing details like return values are acceptable since no output schema exists.

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 a description and example for contactId. The description does not add further semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, 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 tool removes a contact from every campaign and distinguishes it from the v3 equivalent. The legacy nature and exact endpoint are specified, providing a specific verb+resource that differentiates it from siblings.

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 explicitly states 'prefer the v3 tool for new integrations,' giving clear usage guidance. It also mentions functional equivalence, helping the agent choose correctly.

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