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. It discloses the core behavior (setting/removing upload email) and the effect of parameter values (None removes, 'open' accepts any email), but doesn't mention permission requirements, whether this is a destructive operation, rate limits, or error handling details. It provides basic behavioral context but misses important operational aspects.

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 perfectly structured: a clear purpose statement followed by well-organized Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value with zero waste, and the information is front-loaded with the core functionality stated first.

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 and no output schema, the description covers the basic operation and parameters well, but lacks information about return values (beyond 'dictionary containing updated folder object or error message'), error conditions, and permission requirements. It's adequate but has clear gaps for a tool that modifies system state.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: folder_id's purpose, folder_upload_email_access's optional nature with clear semantics (None removes, 'open' vs 'collaborators' behavior). It adds crucial meaning beyond the bare schema, making parameter usage understandable.

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 specific action ('Sets or removes the upload email address') on a specific resource ('for a folder in Box'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like box_folder_set_description_tool or box_folder_set_sync_tool that modify different 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 implies usage through the parameter explanation (when to set vs. remove), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like box_folder_set_collaboration_tool for access control or provide prerequisites. It offers some contextual guidance but lacks explicit when/when-not statements.

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