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 this is a creation operation, implying mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it overwrites existing folders, rate limits, or error handling. The mention of returning 'error message' hints at possible failures but lacks detail.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose. The Args/Returns structure is organized, though slightly verbose. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant information, making it efficient for understanding.

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, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and parameter semantics but lacks behavioral context (e.g., permissions, side effects) and detailed return value explanation. It's minimally adequate for a simple creation tool but has clear gaps in completeness.

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 fully. It provides clear semantics for both parameters: 'name' as the folder name and 'parent_folder_id' with the specific note to use '0' for root folder. This adds crucial meaning beyond the bare schema, effectively documenting all parameters.

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 ('Creates') and resource ('new folder in Box'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling folder creation tools (like box_folder_copy_tool or box_web_link_create_tool), but the specificity is sufficient for basic understanding.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like box_folder_copy_tool or box_web_link_create_tool. The description mentions the parent_folder_id parameter defaulting to '0' for root, which hints at usage context, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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