MCP Server Box

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that this creates a collaboration (a write/mutation operation), mentions email notification capability, and hints at access control effects through is_access_only. However, it doesn't cover important behavioral aspects like required permissions, error conditions, rate limits, or whether the operation is idempotent. The description adds some context but leaves significant gaps 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 well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns) and front-loads the core purpose. Each sentence adds value, though the parameter explanations could be slightly more concise. The structure helps an agent quickly parse the tool's functionality and requirements.

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 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a reasonable job but has gaps. It explains parameters well and indicates the return type, but doesn't describe error responses, required authentication level, or collaboration lifecycle implications. Given the complexity and lack of structured metadata, the description should provide more complete behavioral context.

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 fully compensates by providing detailed parameter explanations. It documents all 6 parameters, explains their purposes, provides default values, enumerates available roles, and clarifies optional parameters. The description adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema, making parameter usage clear to an agent.

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 specific action ('Create a collaboration on a file'), identifies the resource ('file'), and specifies the target ('with a user specified by user ID'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like box_collaboration_file_user_by_user_login_tool by explicitly mentioning user ID identification rather than login credentials.

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 usage context through parameter explanations (e.g., role options, is_access_only effects), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like box_collaboration_file_group_by_group_id_tool or box_collaboration_folder_user_by_user_id_tool. It provides some guidance through default values and optional parameters but lacks explicit comparison or exclusion criteria.

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