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 for behavioral disclosure. It correctly identifies this as a creation/mutation operation ('Create a collaboration'), but lacks details about permissions required, error conditions, rate limits, or what happens if the collaboration already exists. The return value description ('Dictionary containing collaboration details or error message') is minimal but acknowledges potential errors.

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 (purpose statement, Args, Returns). The opening sentence efficiently states the core functionality. The Args section is comprehensive but necessary given the parameter count. Some redundancy exists (e.g., 'user login (email)' could be more concise), but overall it's appropriately sized for the complexity.

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 7 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It covers parameter semantics well but lacks behavioral details like authentication requirements, error handling specifics, and collaboration lifecycle considerations. The return value description is minimal given no output schema exists.

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 and 7 parameters, the description provides substantial value by explaining all parameters in the Args section. It clarifies the purpose of each parameter, provides the default value for 'role', lists available role options, and explains the effect of 'is_access_only'. This compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions.

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'), resource ('on a folder'), and key differentiator ('with a user specified by user login (email)'). It distinguishes this tool from similar sibling tools like 'box_collaboration_folder_user_by_user_id_tool' by specifying the user identification method.

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. While it mentions the user identification method, it doesn't explain when to choose email-based collaboration over user ID-based collaboration or other collaboration methods. There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases.

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