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

Annotations already declare write (readOnlyHint=false), open-world, and non-idempotent behavior. The description adds value beyond them: it explains link-selection logic (public link vs open_url) and the connection-failure error path. It does not cover duplicate/repeat-attach behavior, which is relevant given idempotentHint=false.

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?

Three tight sentences with the primary action front-loaded, followed by link-selection and error behavior. No filler or repetition, and each sentence adds usable 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 write tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the destination, the link rule, and the failure mode. It omits success/return behavior and repeat-attach semantics, which is a minor gap given the annotations already flag non-idempotency.

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 all three parameters (deal_id, flow_id, summary with its 1000-char limit) are already documented. The description restates the summary and link concept but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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: attaches a Wavelength flow to a HubSpot deal as a note. It distinguishes itself from the many send_flow_to_* siblings by naming the concrete destination (HubSpot deal / note) rather than a generic 'send'. An agent can identify the tool without opening the schema.

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 implied by the CRM/HubSpot framing, and a precondition is given (HubSpot must be connected or an error is returned). However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance, e.g. how this differs from the send_flow_to_salesforce/servicenow siblings or from search_crm_deals/crm_status.

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