ghl_contact_remove_from_all_campaigns_legacy

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new context: required OAuth scope (contacts.write), the fact the endpoint is no longer in live v3 docs as of a dated check, and that it survives only under the legacy Version header. That deprecation/auth detail is exactly the kind of information annotations cannot convey.

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 deprecation warning is front-loaded and clearly bracketed, but the sentence about internal renaming and the '_delete2' suffix collision is tooling trivia that does not help an agent decide or invoke. Roughly a third of the text could be cut without losing decision-relevant information.

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 single-parameter legacy mutation with no output schema, the definition supplies everything an agent needs: what it does, that it is deprecated, the alternative to prefer, the auth scope, and the exact endpoint. Nothing material is missing.

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?

Only one parameter (contactId) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema carries the load. The description adds nothing about the contactId format or where to source it, which is acceptable given the baseline but is not extra value.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (remove a contact from every campaign) and explicitly distinguishes itself from both the v3 sibling `ghl_contact_remove_from_all_campaigns` and the narrower `ghl_contact_remove_from_campaign`. The endpoint path and version header remove any residual ambiguity about which HTTP op is behind the tool.

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?

Explicitly says 'prefer the v3 tool for new integrations' and repeats 'Expect removal; prefer a current equivalent.' The when-to-use (legacy Version header only), when-not (new integrations), and the named alternative are all present.

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