hubspot_update_deal

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description does not need to establish mutation, but it adds no behavioral detail about what gets overwritten or whether the update is partial or full. It mentions routing through the domain-agent dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope, which is useful but generic; no side effects or failure modes are disclosed.

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, with a clear leading action line, a short routing/scoping sentence, and a structured Args list. There is no redundant filler beyond the somewhat tautological opening.

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 no schema-level parameter docs, the description is incomplete: it doesn't tell the agent what update_deal actually does, what fields can be passed through inputs, or how to target a specific deal. The output schema may cover return values, but the input side is under-specified for correct 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description's argument lines are the only semantic signal. They identify message as a free-text objective and inputs as an optional JSON string, but they don't specify the JSON shape, required identifiers such as deal ID, or how the two parameters interact. This is a minimal but non-zero contribution.

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 only says 'Run the hubspot domain agent action `update_deal`,' which largely restates the tool name rather than explaining what the action actually does. It never states that the tool modifies an existing HubSpot deal or which properties can change, so an agent must infer purpose entirely from the name.

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 gives no when-to-use criteria or comparison to sibling tools like hubspot_create_deal, hubspot_get_deal, or hubspot_search_deals. The JWT/tenant/company scoping is execution context, not usage guidance.

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