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, implying a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires specific permissions, if it's idempotent, rate limits, or error handling. The Returns section hints at error messages, but this is minimal. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 structured with clear sections (Args, Returns) but is verbose. Sentences like 'Create a collaboration on a folder with a user specified by user ID.' are efficient, but the parameter explanations are lengthy. It's front-loaded with the purpose, yet could be more concise by avoiding redundancy (e.g., repeating parameter names). Overall, it's adequate but not exemplary.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, mutation operation) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers parameters well but misses behavioral context (e.g., side effects, permissions). The Returns section mentions 'Dictionary containing collaboration details or error message,' which helps but is vague. For a mutation tool with no structured support, this leaves gaps in understanding full behavior.

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 description must compensate. It adds significant value by explaining all 7 parameters in the Args section, including meanings, defaults (e.g., role defaults to 'editor'), and options (e.g., available roles). This goes well beyond the schema's bare titles. However, it doesn't fully cover nuances like format for 'expires_at' (DateTime) or clarify 'can_view_path' (implied by 'is_access_only'), preventing a perfect score.

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 collaboration on a folder with a user specified by user ID.' It specifies the verb ('Create'), resource ('collaboration on a folder'), and target ('user specified by user ID'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'box_collaboration_folder_user_by_user_login_tool' or 'box_collaboration_folder_group_by_group_id_tool', which would require a 5.

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. With multiple collaboration tools in the sibling list (e.g., 'box_collaboration_file_user_by_user_id_tool', 'box_collaboration_folder_user_by_user_login_tool'), there's no indication of when this specific tool is appropriate. It also lacks prerequisites like authentication requirements or permission levels needed.

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