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. It states this is an update operation but doesn't mention permissions required, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to unspecified properties. The mention of 'validated properties' hints at some validation but doesn't explain what validation occurs or error handling.

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, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with a clear primary function.

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 annotations, 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and 2 parameters (including a complex nested object), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'validated' means, doesn't mention the sibling tools for context, and provides no information about return values or error conditions.

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 schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description mentions 'validated properties' which relates to the 'properties' parameter, but doesn't explain what 'leadId' is or provide any details about the nested properties object structure. This adds minimal value beyond what's evident from the schema structure alone.

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 ('Update') and resource ('an existing lead'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'crm_update_company' or 'crm_update_contact', which follow the same pattern for different CRM objects.

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 'crm_batch_update_leads' or 'crm_update_object'. It mentions 'validated properties' but doesn't explain what validation entails or when this tool is preferred over other update methods.

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