HubSpot MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool archives/deletes multiple associations, implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't address critical aspects like whether deletions are permanent/reversible, required permissions, rate limits, error handling for partial failures, or what the response contains. For a batch deletion tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Archive (delete) multiple associations') and adds necessary context ('in a single request'). Every word earns its place, making it appropriately concise for the tool's complexity.

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 batch deletion tool with 3 parameters (including complex nested structures), 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It covers the basic purpose but misses critical context: parameter meanings, behavioral details (permanence, permissions, error handling), and output expectations. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without additional documentation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate but adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'fromObjectType' and 'toObjectType' represent (the object types being associated), what valid values are (though enums are in schema), or the structure of 'inputs' array (containing from/to objects with IDs). The description provides zero guidance beyond the schema's raw structure.

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) multiple associations') and the scope ('in a single request'), which provides a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from the singular 'crm_archive_association' sibling tool by emphasizing the batch/multiple aspect, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other batch operations like 'crm_batch_create_associations'.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when-not-to-use scenarios, or compare it to sibling tools like 'crm_archive_association' (for single deletions) or 'crm_batch_create_associations' (for batch creation). The agent must infer usage from the name and context alone.

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