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 is a creation/mutation operation and describes the return format (success with batch ID or error message), but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, idempotency, or side effects. The behavioral disclosure is minimal but not misleading.

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 a helpful example. It is appropriately sized for a 4-parameter tool, though the example could be slightly condensed. Every sentence adds value, and key information is front-loaded.

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 complexity (batch document generation), no annotations, and an output schema present, the description does a good job. It explains parameters thoroughly, provides an example, and outlines return behavior. However, it lacks guidance on error handling specifics or integration with sibling tools like job listing tools.

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 provides clear explanations for all 4 parameters, including a detailed example for 'document_generation_data' that illustrates structure and usage. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema, though some nuances like data validation or constraints are not covered.

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 new Box Doc Gen batch'), the resource ('to generate documents from a template'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'box_docgen_create_single_file_from_user_input_tool' by emphasizing batch processing. The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.

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 when generating multiple documents from a template in batch mode, but does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like the single-file sibling tool. No prerequisites, exclusions, or clear contextual boundaries are provided beyond the basic function.

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