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 'Sets collaboration settings' implying a mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, error handling, or rate limits. The return statement mentions 'updated folder object or error message' but lacks detail on format or conditions. For a mutation tool 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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It front-loads the purpose in one sentence, then details parameters and returns in a clear format. Every sentence adds value: the purpose statement is essential, and parameter explanations are necessary given 0% schema coverage. Minor deduction because the 'ctx' parameter explanation is vague ('Context containing Box client information'), which could be more precise.

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 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description does well on parameters but lacks in other areas. It explains parameters thoroughly but misses behavioral context (e.g., permissions, side effects) and output details beyond 'dictionary containing the updated folder object or error message'. For a mutation tool with no annotations, this leaves 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 does so by explicitly listing all 4 parameters with clear semantics: 'folder_id (str): ID of the folder...', 'can_non_owners_invite (bool): Specifies if users who are not the owner...', etc. Each parameter is explained beyond the schema's basic titles, adding crucial context about what each boolean controls.

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 tool's purpose: 'Sets collaboration settings for a folder in Box.' It specifies the verb ('Sets'), resource ('collaboration settings for a folder'), and context ('in Box'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'box_collaboration_update_tool' or 'box_folder_set_sync_tool', which prevents 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. With many sibling tools handling collaborations and folder settings (e.g., 'box_collaboration_update_tool', 'box_folder_set_sync_tool'), there's no indication of prerequisites, constraints, or specific scenarios for this tool. The minimal score reflects this lack of contextual guidance.

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