HubSpot MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Update an existing task' implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether updates are partial or full, error handling, or what happens if the task doesn't exist. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 with a single sentence, 'Update an existing task', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. While it may be under-specified, it earns a high score for conciseness as every word serves a clear purpose without redundancy.

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 nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover parameter meanings, usage context, behavioral details, or return values. For a tool that modifies data with multiple fields, this minimal description fails to provide adequate context 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?

The description provides no information about parameters. With schema description coverage at 0% and 2 parameters (taskId and properties), the schema documents the structure but not the meaning. The description doesn't compensate by explaining what 'taskId' refers to or what 'properties' contains (e.g., task fields like body, priority). This leaves key semantics undocumented.

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 task' clearly states the verb (update) and resource (task), but it's vague about what specifically gets updated. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'tasks_batch_update' or 'tasks_update' (if there were multiple task update tools), though the sibling list shows only one 'tasks_update' tool. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about scope or fields.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes 'tasks_batch_update' for batch operations and 'tasks_create' for creating new tasks, but the description doesn't mention these alternatives or specify prerequisites like needing an existing task ID. Usage is implied only by the tool name and description.

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