MCP Server Box

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the lock prevents actions by others, which implies mutation and access control, but lacks details on permissions required, whether locks are reversible, rate limits, or error conditions. It mentions the lock creator retains access, which is useful but insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and uses clear bullet points. Minor redundancy exists (e.g., 'optional' repeated in parameter descriptions), but overall it's efficient.

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 no annotations and an output schema, the description is moderately complete. It explains parameters well and mentions return values, but lacks behavioral details like permissions, reversibility, or error handling. The output schema existence reduces the need for return value explanation, but gaps remain in usage context.

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 meaning by explaining each parameter: 'file_id' identifies the file to lock, 'lock_expires_at' is an optional expiration in ISO 8601 format, and 'is_download_prevented' is an optional flag to block downloads. This covers all parameters beyond the schema's basic titles.

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 with specific verb ('Define a lock') and resource ('on a file'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'box_file_unlock_tool' by specifying it creates rather than removes locks. It explains what the lock prevents (moving, renaming, or changing by others).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. While it's clear this creates locks, there's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing edit permissions), when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'box_file_unlock_tool' for removal.

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