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 indicates this is a destructive operation ('Archive (delete)'), which is helpful, but doesn't specify whether this is permanent or reversible deletion, what permissions are required, what happens to associated data, or what the response looks like. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral 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 extremely concise at just three words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately understandable without unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter documentation, the description is inadequate. It doesn't address critical aspects like the permanence of deletion, error conditions, authentication requirements, or what constitutes a valid engagementId. The context demands more comprehensive guidance for safe tool invocation.

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 description doesn't explicitly mention parameters, but with only one parameter (engagementId) and 0% schema description coverage, the description's mention of 'an engagement' provides essential context that the parameter should be an engagement identifier. This compensates reasonably for the lack of schema documentation, though it doesn't specify format or constraints.

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 resource ('an engagement'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'calls_archive', 'emails_archive', or 'engagement_details_create', which would require mentioning it's specifically for engagement details rather than general engagements.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing engagement), when not to use it (e.g., for soft deletion vs permanent deletion), or how it differs from sibling tools like 'crm_archive_object' or 'engagement_details_update'.

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