ghl_opportunity_remove_followers

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

Annotations already mark it destructive, idempotent, and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context the annotations don't carry: the DELETE endpoint, the v3 version header, and the required OAuth scope (opportunities.write), which tells the agent about auth requirements before calling.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first line, with endpoint/scope as supporting metadata below. It is compact and waste-free, though the raw endpoint/version formatting is slightly spec-dump-like.

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?

No output schema exists, so return values aren't needed, and annotations cover the mutation profile. Combined with the endpoint, version, and OAuth scope, the description gives an agent enough to invoke this destructive nested-body tool correctly; only the when-to-use routing to siblings 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents id, body.followers, and isRemoveAllFollowers, including the max-10 limit. The description only hints at the two modes ('one or all followers'), adding marginal value over the schema's baseline.

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 leads with a specific verb+resource ('Remove Followers ... removal of one or all followers from an opportunity') and names the exact endpoint, so an agent knows precisely what the tool does. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from ghl_opportunity_add_followers or ghl_contact_remove_followers, though the naming makes the distinction reasonably obvious.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'removal of one or all followers' suggests the two operating modes, but the description never states when to use this instead of ghl_opportunity_add_followers or ghl_contact_remove_followers, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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