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. It mentions the tool 'overrides role-based download permissions,' indicating a mutation that changes access settings, which is useful behavioral context. However, it lacks details on permissions required, side effects, or error conditions, leaving gaps in transparency 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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by structured sections for Args and Returns, making it efficient and easy to parse. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, though the formatting could be slightly more polished.

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 has an output schema (returns dict with updated file info), the description doesn't need to detail return values. It covers the mutation purpose and parameter semantics adequately, but as a permission-changing tool with no annotations, it could benefit from more behavioral context like auth requirements or limitations.

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 documents the single parameter 'file_id' with its type and purpose, adding meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. This compensates well for the schema gap, though it doesn't elaborate on format or constraints beyond 'str'.

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 ('Allow anyone with access to the file to download it') and specifies the resource ('file'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'box_file_set_download_company_tool' or 'box_file_set_download_reset_tool', which appear to be related download permission tools, so it misses full sibling distinction.

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 implies usage by mentioning it 'overrides role-based download permissions,' suggesting it's for granting broader access, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like the other download-setting tools in the sibling list. No clear exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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