hubspot_passthrough

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false), so the description need not repeat those. It adds routing context: 'Routes through the platform's domain-agent dispatcher under your JWT, tenant, and company scope.' This is useful for auth expectations but does not disclose more specific behavioral traits such as what can be mutated or side effects beyond the annotations.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first line names the action, the second gives routing scope, and the Args section is clearly structured. There is no wasted text, though the missing substantive explanation about passthrough prevents a perfect score.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover the destructive profile, so some burden is lifted. Still, the core semantic is missing: what 'passthrough' is for, when to choose it, and what inputs actually drive it. For a potentially powerful generic action, this is a significant gap that leaves the agent under-informed for both selection and invocation.

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 provides basic clarifications—'message: Free-text objective for the action' and 'inputs: Optional JSON string of structured inputs for the action'—which add meaning beyond the bare schema types and defaults. However, it does not explain how the two parameters interact, what keys are expected in the JSON, or what a valid objective looks like, so compensation is incomplete.

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 specific verb and resource—'Run the hubspot domain agent action `passthrough`'—and distinguishes this from specialized HubSpot tools by naming the generic passthrough action. However, it never explains what 'passthrough' actually does, so the agent cannot infer its effect or know what kinds of operations it enables.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as hubspot_graphql_query, salesforce_passthrough, or the many specialized hubspot_* tools. The description does not say 'use this for operations not covered by dedicated tools' or provide any exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to guess.

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