MCP Server Box

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool copies a folder but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires specific permissions, whether it preserves folder contents and metadata, what happens on conflicts, or any rate limits. The return value description is minimal ('Dictionary containing the copied folder object or error message').

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?

Well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter documentation. The Args/Returns format is efficient. However, the description could be more front-loaded with key behavioral information instead of just the basic action.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a mutation tool (copy operation), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and parameters but lacks important context about permissions, behavior with existing folders, error conditions, and return format details. The parameter documentation helps, but overall completeness is limited for a tool that modifies data.

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%, but the description provides clear parameter documentation in the Args section: folder_id ('ID of the folder to copy'), destination_parent_folder_id ('ID of the destination parent folder'), and name ('New name for the copied folder. If not provided, original name is used'). This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't cover format details like ID constraints.

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 ('Copies a folder') and resource ('in Box'), and distinguishes it from siblings like box_folder_move_tool (copy vs move) and box_file_copy_tool (folder vs file). The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose distinguishes it from move operations, there's no mention of when copying is preferred over other folder operations, prerequisites, or limitations. The description assumes the agent knows when copying is appropriate.

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