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 but only states it's an update operation. It doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens when status is changed to 'rejected'. The description mentions it returns 'updated collaboration details or an error message' but provides no specifics about response format or error conditions.

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 each sentence adds value. It's appropriately sized for a 5-parameter tool, though the Returns section could be more specific about what 'updated collaboration details' includes.

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 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a decent job explaining parameters but lacks crucial context about permissions, side effects, and response structure. It's minimally adequate but leaves significant gaps for safe tool invocation.

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 compensates well by documenting all 5 parameters with their purposes, defaults, and specific values. It explains role options, status values, and what each parameter controls. The only gap is lack of format details for expires_at (though datetime is implied) and deeper context about parameter interactions.

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 ('Update a specific collaboration's role') and resource ('collaboration'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like box_collaboration_delete_tool or box_collaboration_list_by_file_tool. It goes beyond the tool name by specifying what aspect of the collaboration is being updated.

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 like box_collaboration_folder_user_by_user_id_tool or box_folder_set_collaboration_tool. It doesn't mention prerequisites, error conditions, or typical use cases for updating collaborations.

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