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 mentions the destructive action ('Deletes') and the recursive option, but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether deletion is permanent/reversible, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens to folder contents when recursive=false. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by well-organized parameter and return value sections. Every sentence earns its place, and the information is front-loaded with the core functionality stated first.

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 destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and parameters but lacks critical context about permissions, safety considerations, error handling, and return format details. The parameter semantics help, but overall completeness is limited for a tool that permanently deletes 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%, so the description must compensate. It provides meaningful context for both parameters: 'folder_id' is explained as 'ID of the folder to delete' with type information, and 'recursive' is described with its purpose and default value. This adds substantial value 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 action ('Deletes') and resource ('a folder from Box'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'box_file_delete_tool', but the resource specificity (folder vs file) provides implicit 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication, permissions), when recursive deletion is appropriate, or how this differs from other deletion tools in the sibling list like 'box_file_delete_tool'.

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