MCP Server Box

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it correctly identifies this as a copy operation (implying mutation), it doesn't mention important behavioral traits like whether it requires specific permissions, what happens if the destination already has a file with the same name, or if there are rate limits. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 a clear opening sentence followed by Args and Returns sections. It's appropriately sized with no wasted words. The only minor issue is that the opening sentence could be slightly more front-loaded with key constraints, but overall it's efficient and organized.

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 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description provides basic but incomplete context. It explains the core action and parameters at a high level, and the presence of an output schema means it doesn't need to detail return values. However, it lacks important contextual information about permissions, error conditions, and behavioral nuances that would help the agent use it correctly.

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 schema provides only titles without explanations. The description adds some semantic value by explaining that 'new_name' is optional and provides a new name for the copied file, and that 'version_number' is optional and specifies which version to copy. However, it doesn't fully compensate for the coverage gap - it doesn't explain what format file IDs should be in, what happens if version_number is invalid, or provide examples of valid inputs.

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 ('Copy a file') and resource ('to a specified destination folder in Box'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like box_file_move_tool or box_file_upload_tool. It provides a precise verb+resource combination that leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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_file_move_tool (which moves rather than copies) or box_folder_copy_tool (which copies folders). It also doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing appropriate permissions to access both source and destination. Without this context, the agent lacks clear usage direction.

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