hubspot_chat

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

The annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds no additional context about side effects, what actions might be performed, what data could be modified, or the consequences of invoking it. The mention of JWT, tenant, and company scope is contextual but does not clarify behavior.

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 relatively concise and includes only a short introductory sentence, a routing/scope line, and parameter descriptions. The routing sentence adds some boilerplate but is not excessively verbose. The overall structure is clear and easy to scan.

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?

The description lacks critical context. It does not mention what the tool returns (despite having an output schema), what outcomes to expect, or any side effects beyond the annotations. Since the tool is potentially destructive, the absence of information about what could be affected or how to handle the interaction leaves the agent underinformed.

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 minimal but useful explanations for the two parameters: 'message' is described as a free-text objective, and 'inputs' as an optional JSON string of structured inputs. However, it does not elaborate on the expected structure of 'inputs', provide examples, or clarify how the parameters interact. Given the schema has no descriptions, this is a basic compensation but lacks depth.

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 states a clear verb ('Run') and a specific resource ('hubspot domain agent action `chat`'), but the nature of the action is vague. It mentions routing through a dispatcher but does not explain what the chat action actually does (e.g., interacts with HubSpot CRM objects, answers questions, etc.). This makes the purpose only partially clear.

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 other chat-like tools (e.g., brain_chat, coding_chat) or other HubSpot-specific tools. It does not mention alternatives, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate or inappropriate.

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