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. While 'Update' implies a mutation operation, the description doesn't address critical behavioral aspects: what permissions are required, whether the update is partial or complete, how validation works, what happens with invalid data, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool with complex nested parameters, this is a significant gap.

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 5 words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Update') and gets straight to the point without any unnecessary elaboration or repetition.

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 complex nested parameters (3 parameters including a deeply nested object), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely inadequate. It doesn't explain what constitutes valid updates, how the system handles partial versus complete updates, what permissions are required, or what the tool returns. The minimal description fails to provide the context needed for safe and effective use.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 3 parameters (including a complex nested 'engagement' object with 9 properties), the description provides no parameter information whatsoever. It doesn't explain what 'engagementId' refers to, what fields can be updated in the 'engagement' object, or what 'metadata' is for. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 verb ('Update') and resource ('an existing engagement's details'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'engagement_details_create' or 'calls_update', which would require more specificity about what distinguishes engagement details updates from other update operations.

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. With many sibling tools including 'engagement_details_create', 'engagement_details_get', and various batch operations, there's no indication of prerequisites, when this is appropriate versus creating new engagements, or how it relates to other engagement-related tools.

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