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. 'Update an existing note' implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, what happens to unspecified properties (partial vs. full updates), whether changes are reversible, or any rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

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 ('Update an existing note') with no wasted words, making it front-loaded and easy to parse. Every word earns its place, though this brevity comes at the cost of completeness.

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?

Given the complexity (mutation tool with 2 required parameters, nested objects, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what properties can be updated, how to format them, what the response looks like, or error conditions. For a tool that modifies data, this leaves critical gaps for an AI agent.

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 description coverage is 0%, meaning neither parameter ('noteId' and 'properties') has descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no information about what these parameters mean, their expected formats, or how 'properties' relates to note fields like 'hs_note_body'. With two required parameters and nested objects, the description fails to compensate for the 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 'Update an existing note' clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('an existing note'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'notes_batch_update' or 'notes_update' (if there were multiple note update tools), though in this context 'notes_update' appears to be the primary update tool for individual notes.

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 like 'notes_batch_update' or 'notes_create'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing note ID) or contextual constraints, leaving the agent to 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.