MCP Server Box

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the sync feature is for Box Sync (discontinued) and not used by Box Drive, which adds useful context about the tool's relevance. However, it doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether this is a destructive/mutative operation, what permissions are required, potential side effects, or error handling. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 starts with a clear purpose statement, followed by Args and Returns sections that organize parameter and return value information efficiently. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or wasted text. The only minor improvement would be integrating the Box Sync/Drive note more seamlessly into the flow.

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 the tool's complexity (a mutation operation with 2 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description provides a baseline level of completeness. It covers the purpose, parameters, and return type (though vaguely as 'dictionary containing the updated folder object or error message'). However, it lacks details on authentication needs, error conditions, rate limits, or example usage, which would be helpful for an agent to invoke it correctly in context.

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 compensates by explaining both parameters: folder_id ('ID of the folder to set sync state for') and sync_state ('Specifies whether a folder should be synced... Value is one of synced,not_synced,partially_synced'). This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't cover format details (e.g., folder_id format) or constraints beyond the enum values, leaving some gaps.

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 the sync state for a folder in Box.' This specifies the verb ('Sets'), resource ('sync state for a folder'), and platform ('Box'), making the action unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like box_folder_set_collaboration_tool or box_folder_set_description_tool, which also modify folder properties.

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 implied usage context by mentioning that sync state 'is used by Box Sync (discontinued) and is not used by Box Drive,' which helps the agent understand the tool's limited applicability. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any prerequisites like required permissions, leaving some ambiguity about its practical application.

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