MCP Server Box

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool updates metadata and can optionally remove non-included data, but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether the update is idempotent, error conditions (e.g., invalid template key), or the structure of the API response. 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 appropriately sized with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. The structure with 'Args:' and 'Returns:' sections is helpful, though the inclusion of 'ctx (Context)' in Args is unnecessary clutter since it's typically implicit in MCP tools.

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 4 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers basic parameter semantics but lacks behavioral context (permissions, errors), usage guidance, and details on the response format, which are crucial for safe and effective tool invocation.

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 lists all four parameters with brief explanations, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't provide details on parameter formats (e.g., what a valid template_key looks like), constraints, or examples for the metadata dictionary structure, leaving some ambiguity.

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 verb 'update' and the resource 'metadata template instance associated with a specific file', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its metadata-related siblings like 'box_metadata_set_instance_on_file_tool' or 'box_metadata_get_instance_on_file_tool', which would require mentioning partial updates versus complete replacements or retrievals.

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 (e.g., needing an existing metadata instance), comparison to sibling tools like 'set' or 'delete' metadata instances, or scenarios where this update operation is appropriate versus creating a new instance.

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