MCP Server Box

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Sets the description' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like required permissions, whether this overwrites existing descriptions, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the folder doesn't exist. The return value documentation is minimal ('Dictionary containing the updated folder object or error message').

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 reasonably concise with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter documentation. However, the structure includes an unexplained 'ctx' parameter in the Args section that doesn't appear in the schema, creating inconsistency. The return documentation is minimal but adequate.

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, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain behavioral implications (permissions, side effects), provide parameter context beyond basic types, or guide usage relative to sibling tools. The mention of 'ctx' without schema correspondence adds confusion rather than 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. It provides basic parameter names and types (folder_id as str, description as str) but lacks semantic context like format expectations (e.g., folder_id format, description length limits), what constitutes valid input, or examples. The 'ctx' parameter is mentioned but not explained in the schema, creating confusion.

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 ('Sets the description') and target resource ('of a folder in Box'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'box_file_set_description_tool' which performs a similar operation on files rather than folders.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites (like required permissions), when this operation is appropriate, or what other tools might be used for related operations (like viewing folder descriptions with 'box_folder_info_tool').

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