box_create

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

The description adds behavioral details beyond the annotations, specifically that isolated mode ignores env and that the tool waits until the box is ready when possible. These are non-obvious behaviors not covered by readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, or destructiveHint, providing meaningful context.

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 three short sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose in the first sentence. It is concise with no redundant or wasted words.

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?

The tool has no output schema and descriptions for all params, but the description does not explain what happens after creation (e.g., return value, how to interact with the created box). It mentions waiting until ready but not what is returned or failure behavior. However, given the simple create action and annotations, the description is adequate but not fully complete.

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?

The input schema covers all four parameters with 100% description coverage. The description adds marginal value by clarifying that env is always noEnv in isolated mode, reinforcing the schema's note that env is trusted mode only. No additional parameter semantics are provided for name, type, or ttlSeconds.

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's purpose: 'Create a Box cloud computer.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and it is unambiguous. The purpose is distinct from sibling tools like box_list or box_resume, which operate on existing boxes.

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 some contextual hints, such as 'Isolated mode always uses noEnv' and 'Waits until ready when possible,' but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like box_resume or box_list. It implies usage for creating new boxes but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative guidance.

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