MCP Server Box

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the action ('Removes') but does not mention whether this requires specific user permissions, if it's reversible, potential side effects (e.g., impact on folder access), or error handling. The return value description is vague ('Dictionary containing the updated folder object or error message'), lacking details on structure or conditions.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by structured sections for Args and Returns. It avoids unnecessary fluff, though the Args section includes redundant context ('ctx: Context: The context containing Box client information') that could be inferred from the tool name.

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 description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic action and parameters but lacks critical details: behavioral context (e.g., permissions, reversibility), error handling specifics, and a clear output structure. For a mutation tool with minimal structured data, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 explains 'folder_id' as 'ID of the folder to remove from favorites', adding basic meaning beyond the schema's title 'Folder Id'. However, it does not provide format examples (e.g., numeric string), validation rules, or sourcing guidance, leaving gaps in parameter understanding.

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 ('Removes') and resource ('a folder from the user's favorites in Box'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'box_folder_favorites_add_tool', which would be needed for a perfect score.

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, such as the sibling 'box_folder_favorites_add_tool' or other folder management tools. It lacks context about prerequisites, permissions, or scenarios where removal is appropriate.

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