hubspot_graphql_query

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

Annotations already carry the destructive/read-only hints, so the description only needs to add context beyond that. It adds useful routing and scoping context (domain-agent dispatcher, JWT/tenant/company scope), but it does not disclose what side effects a GraphQL query might have or how the dispatcher behaves on failure, which matters given destructiveHint is true.

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 compact and front-loaded with the primary action, followed by routing context and an Args block. It earns each sentence without unnecessary padding, though the Args block is minimal.

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?

Even with an output schema present, the description leaves key selection and invocation details unresolved: what `graphql_query` actually does, when to use it instead of sibling HubSpot tools, and how to structure inputs. For a generic dispatcher-style tool with no required parameters, this is not enough for confident 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It explains that `message` is a free-text objective and `inputs` is an optional JSON string of structured inputs, which is helpful but shallow; it does not explain what structured inputs are expected, whether the GraphQL query goes in `message` or `inputs`, or how they interact.

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 names a specific underlying action (`graphql_query`) and explains that it is routed through the platform's domain-agent dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope. This is more specific than a tautology and distinguishes it from other hubspot_* siblings, though it never states plainly what the GraphQL query action accomplishes against HubSpot.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no distinction from alternatives like hubspot_passthrough or hubspot_chat, and no explanation of the conditions that should lead an agent to invoke this dispatcher action. The reader can only infer that it is for running the `graphql_query` action.

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