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 the action but lacks critical details: whether this requires specific permissions, if it's idempotent (adding an already-favorited folder), rate limits, or error conditions. The return statement mentions 'error message' but doesn't specify common failure scenarios.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, Args, Returns) and uses minimal sentences. Every sentence adds value: the first states the purpose, the Args explain parameters, and Returns indicates output format. It could be slightly more concise by integrating parameter explanations into a single paragraph.

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 and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and parameter semantics but lacks behavioral context needed for safe invocation. It doesn't cover authentication requirements, error handling details, or what the 'updated folder object' contains. The absence of output schema increases the need for more 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?

The description provides clear parameter documentation in the Args section, explaining that 'folder_id' is the 'ID of the folder to add to favorites.' With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this adequately compensates for the schema gap. The 'ctx' parameter is also documented as containing client context.

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 ('Adds a folder') and resource ('to the user's favorites in Box'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'box_folder_favorites_remove_tool' which performs the opposite operation. 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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is clear, there's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., authentication requirements), constraints (e.g., folder accessibility), or comparison with related tools like 'box_folder_info_tool' for checking favorite status.

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