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. It mentions the action ('Clear/remove') and return type, but lacks details on permissions, side effects (e.g., if this affects file access or compliance), error handling, or rate limits. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by brief parameter and return details in a structured format. It's efficient with no wasted sentences, though the 'Args:' and 'Returns:' sections could be integrated more smoothly into the narrative.

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 tool's complexity (a mutation with no annotations), the description covers the basic action and parameters but lacks behavioral context like permissions or side effects. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to detail return values, but overall completeness is minimal for safe use.

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 documents the single parameter 'file_id' and its purpose, adding meaning beyond the schema's basic type. However, it doesn't explain format (e.g., numeric string) or constraints, leaving some gaps. With one parameter, this is minimally adequate but not comprehensive.

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 ('Clear/remove') and target ('retention date from a file in Box'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'box_file_retention_date_set_tool' beyond the obvious 'clear' vs 'set' distinction in their names, which is why it doesn't reach a perfect score.

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, prerequisites, or exclusions. It simply states what the tool does without context for selection among the many sibling tools, such as when to clear a retention date versus other file operations.

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