ghl_contact_remove_from_campaign

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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description adds limited behavioral insight. It does disclose OAuth scopes ('contacts.write') and endpoint details (DELETE method, version header), which slightly exceed annotation coverage. No contradictions 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 very brief (one line plus technical metadata). It front-loads the action but includes endpoint details (URL, version, source) that may be redundant for an AI agent. While concise, it could be more structured and agent-friendly.

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 simple delete operation with two required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the action and OAuth scopes. However, it does not mention return values, error scenarios, or prerequisites like whether the contact must exist. Annotations fill some gaps, but completeness is adequate rather than thorough.

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 descriptions and examples for both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning or constraints beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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: removing a contact from a campaign. The verb 'Remove' and resource 'Contact From Campaign' are specific and unambiguous. Among siblings like ghl_contact_add_to_campaign and ghl_contact_remove_from_all_campaigns, this tool is clearly distinguished by targeting a single campaign removal.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, the sibling ghl_contact_remove_from_all_campaigns exists, but the description does not differentiate the use cases. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use, or alternative approaches.

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