HubSpot MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Unsubscribe' implies a mutation operation, the description doesn't disclose whether this action is reversible, what permissions are required, whether it triggers notifications, or what happens to historical communications. It mentions 'all email communications' which is useful context, but lacks other critical behavioral details for a mutation tool.

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 a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's apparent complexity and gets straight to the point without unnecessary elaboration.

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 3 parameters (one with complex enum values), 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the legal basis parameters, doesn't describe what the tool returns, and provides minimal behavioral context. Given the complexity implied by the legal basis parameters, the description should do significantly more to help an agent understand this tool.

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 for all 3 parameters, the description provides no information about any parameters. It doesn't explain what 'contactId' represents, what the legal basis parameters mean, or how they affect the unsubscribe operation. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation in the schema.

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 action ('Unsubscribe') and resource ('a contact from all email communications'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'communications_update_preferences' or 'communications_update_subscription_status', which might handle similar functionality.

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 alternatives like 'communications_update_subscription_status' or 'communications_update_preferences'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts where this tool is appropriate versus other subscription management tools.

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