HubSpot MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates this is a destructive operation ('Archive (delete)'), but doesn't specify whether archiving is reversible, what permissions are required, whether there are side effects, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with a straightforward purpose, though the brevity comes at the cost of missing important contextual 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 destructive mutation tool with 4 parameters (0% schema coverage), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain parameter meanings, behavioral implications, or what happens after the operation. The agent lacks critical information needed to use this tool correctly.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no information about the four required parameters. The agent must infer from parameter names alone what 'fromObjectType', 'toObjectType', 'fromObjectId', and 'toObjectId' mean and how they work together to identify the association to archive.

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 ('Archive (delete)') and the target ('an association between two objects'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'crm_archive_object' or 'crm_batch_archive_associations' beyond the singular vs. batch distinction implied by the names.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'crm_batch_archive_associations' for multiple deletions or 'crm_archive_object' for archiving objects themselves. The description only states what the tool does, not when it's appropriate.

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