MCP Server Box

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool creates a collaboration and describes some parameter effects (e.g., is_access_only hides items from All Files list), but doesn't cover critical behavioral aspects like required permissions, error conditions, rate limits, or whether this is a mutating operation. The return type is mentioned but not what success/failure looks like.

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?

Well-structured with purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, though the description is moderately long (7 sentences). The front-loaded purpose statement is clear, and the parameter explanations are necessary given the 0% schema coverage.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers parameters well but lacks behavioral context about permissions, errors, and collaboration lifecycle. It mentions the return type but not what the dictionary contains. Given the complexity, it's adequate but has clear gaps in operational guidance.

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 explaining all 6 parameters in detail: file_id ('The ID of the file to collaborate on'), user_login ('The login (email) of the user'), role (default, available values), is_access_only (effect on visibility), expires_at (purpose), and notify (email notification). It adds significant meaning beyond the bare 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 'Create a collaboration on a file with a user specified by user login (email)', which provides a specific verb ('Create'), resource ('collaboration on a file'), and distinguishes from siblings like box_collaboration_file_user_by_user_id_tool (which uses user ID instead of login) and box_collaboration_folder_user_by_user_login_tool (which targets folders instead of files).

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 through the parameter explanations (e.g., 'user specified by user login'), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like box_collaboration_file_user_by_user_id_tool or box_collaboration_folder_user_by_user_login_tool. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance or prerequisites are provided.

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