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 renames a folder but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether the rename is reversible, rate limits, or what happens to folder contents. The return value mention is minimal ('Dictionary containing the renamed folder object or error message'), lacking details on success/error formats. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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: the first sentence states the purpose clearly. The Args/Returns sections are structured but could be more concise (e.g., merging 'ctx' explanation). Overall, it's efficient with minimal waste, though the 'ctx' parameter explanation is somewhat redundant given context signals.

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 complexity (a mutation tool renaming folders), no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage (0%), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (permissions, side effects), error handling, and output structure. For a tool that modifies data in a system like Box, this is insufficient to ensure safe and correct usage by 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 schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description adds basic semantics by naming parameters ('folder_id', 'new_name') and their purposes ('ID of the folder to rename', 'New name for the folder'), which compensates partially. However, it doesn't specify constraints (e.g., new_name length, allowed characters) or examples, leaving gaps. With 2 parameters and some added meaning, a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Renames') and resource ('a folder in Box'), providing specific verb+resource. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'box_file_rename_tool' or 'box_folder_move_tool', which have similar rename/move functionality for different resources. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing folder permissions), exclusions (e.g., cannot rename root folders), or when to choose this over similar tools like 'box_file_rename_tool'. Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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