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. It discloses key behavioral traits: partial update nature, ID requirement, error conditions for read-only/non-existent properties, and that empty strings clear values. However, it lacks information about permissions, rate limits, side effects, or response format, which are important for a mutation tool.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences that convey core functionality and important constraints. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more comprehensive given the lack of annotations and schema descriptions.

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 2 parameters (including a nested object), 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It covers basic operation but lacks details about parameter meanings, error handling beyond two specific cases, return values, and integration with sibling tools.

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. It mentions 'ID' and 'properties' but doesn't explain what 'productId' represents, what specific properties can be updated, or the structure of the properties object. The description adds minimal value beyond what's evident from parameter names alone.

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 tool performs a 'partial update of an Object identified by ID', specifying the verb (partial update), resource (Object), and identifier (ID). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'products_update' vs 'products_batch_update' or 'products_create', though the 'partial update' wording implies distinction from full replacement 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 like 'products_create', 'products_batch_update', or 'products_read'. It mentions error conditions (read-only and non-existent properties) but doesn't specify prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or comparison to sibling tools in the extensive list provided.

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