hubspot_deals_merge

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral burden. It details the irreversible nature, association movement, property precedence (primary wins), and required OAuth scopes. This exceeds basic disclosure, though rate limits or error states are not mentioned.

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 five sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value (behavior, scopes, irreversibility). No redundant content, though minor tightening could improve conciseness.

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 tool's complexity (merge with 2 params, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers all necessary context: what happens to associations, property conflict resolution, archival, irreversibility, and required scopes. An agent has sufficient information to use it correctly.

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 coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The description adds emphasis on 'SURVIVING' and 'ABSORB' roles, reinforcing the schema but providing marginal extra value beyond it. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool merges two deal records, specifying the primary and secondary roles and exactly what happens (associations moved, properties merged, secondary archived). It distinctively identifies this as a merge operation among sibling tools like hubspot_crm_archive or hubspot_crm_update.

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 implies when to use (when merging deals) but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with alternatives like updating individually. It provides context on irreversibility and required scopes, but lacks explicit exclusions or sibling differentiation.

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