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 states the action is 'Move' which implies mutation/destructive behavior, but doesn't clarify important aspects like: whether this overwrites existing files with the same name, what permissions are required, if it's reversible, or potential 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 and appropriately sized - a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence serves a purpose with no wasted words. The front-loaded purpose statement makes the tool's function immediately clear.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description provides basic but incomplete context. It covers the purpose and parameters minimally, and mentions there's an output schema ('Returns: dict[str, Any]'), which helps. However, it lacks crucial behavioral details about permissions, overwrite behavior, and error conditions that would be important for a file movement operation.

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?

The description includes an 'Args' section that names the two parameters (file_id and destination_folder_id) and their types, which is helpful since schema description coverage is 0%. However, it doesn't explain what format these IDs should be in, where to find them, or provide any validation rules. The parameter documentation is basic but functional.

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 action ('Move') and resource ('a file to a specified destination folder in Box'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like box_folder_move_tool or box_file_copy_tool, which would require mentioning this is specifically for moving files (not folders) and that it moves rather than copies.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites (like permissions needed), when not to use it (e.g., if the destination doesn't exist), or how it differs from similar tools like box_file_copy_tool or box_folder_move_tool in the sibling list.

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