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 this is a reset operation but doesn't clarify whether this requires specific permissions, whether it's reversible, what happens to existing custom download settings, or any rate limits. The description mentions 'based on collaboration roles' but doesn't explain how these roles affect the reset behavior. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 appropriately sized with three sentences: purpose statement, parameter documentation, and return value documentation. Each sentence serves a clear function. The structure is logical with purpose first, then inputs, then outputs. Minor improvement could be made by integrating the parameter info more naturally rather than as a separate Args section.

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 but with an output schema (implied by 'Returns' statement), the description provides basic purpose and parameter documentation but lacks important behavioral context. It doesn't explain prerequisites, side effects, or error conditions. The presence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to detail return values, but other gaps remain for a tool that modifies file permissions.

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% (parameter 'file_id' has no description in schema), but the description includes an Args section that documents the single parameter 'file_id' with type information. This adds value beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't explain what constitutes a valid file ID format or where to find it, leaving some semantic gaps. With 1 parameter and partial documentation, this meets the baseline expectation.

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 verb ('Reset') and resource ('download permissions'), specifying what the tool does. It distinguishes from siblings like 'box_file_set_download_company_tool' and 'box_file_set_download_open_tool' by focusing on resetting to default behavior rather than setting specific policies. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with these siblings in the description text itself.

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 like 'box_file_set_download_company_tool' or 'box_file_set_download_open_tool'. It mentions 'default behavior based on collaboration roles' but doesn't explain what triggers this need or what the default behavior entails. No explicit when/when-not instructions are provided.

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