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. 'Update' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't specify required permissions, whether updates are reversible, validation behavior beyond 'validated properties', or error handling. The mention of 'validated properties' hints at some validation but lacks detail on what validation entails.

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 that gets straight to the point. There's no wasted verbiage, and it's appropriately sized for a tool with a clear primary function. However, it could be more front-loaded with critical context about the tool's scope.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after the update (success response, error cases), doesn't clarify the validation process, and provides minimal guidance on the complex nested 'properties' object with many possible fields.

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 schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description mentions 'validated properties' which hints at the 'properties' parameter, but doesn't explain what 'leadId' is, what specific properties can be updated, or what 'validated' means. It adds minimal value beyond what's implied by the parameter names in the schema.

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 ('Update') and target resource ('an existing lead'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'crm_create_lead' by specifying 'existing', but doesn't differentiate from other update tools like 'crm_batch_update_leads' or 'crm_update_contact' beyond the resource type.

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 (e.g., needing a lead ID), when to choose batch updates instead, or any constraints on usage. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and schema alone.

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