MCP Server Box

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It successfully reveals the critical irreversible nature of the operation ('cannot be shortened once set'), which is essential for a mutation tool. It also specifies the return format, though it doesn't cover permissions, error conditions, or rate limits.

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 perfectly structured and concise: a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place, with the irreversible constraint front-loaded for maximum impact. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 coverage, the description does well by explaining parameters, specifying the irreversible nature, and documenting the return format. However, it doesn't mention required permissions, potential errors, or how this interacts with other file operations. The existence of an output schema helps but doesn't fully compensate for missing behavioral 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It provides meaningful context for both parameters: 'file_id' is explained as 'The ID of the file to update' and 'retention_date' as 'The retention date for the file in ISO 8601 format'. This adds crucial semantic information beyond the bare schema.

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 ('Set a retention date'), target resource ('for a file in Box'), and includes a critical behavioral constraint ('cannot be shortened once set'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'box_file_retention_date_clear_tool' by specifying it's for setting rather than clearing retention dates.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (to set retention dates on Box files) and implicitly contrasts with the 'clear' sibling tool. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like other file management tools, though the sibling list shows many unrelated tools.

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