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 the action ('create or update') but doesn't describe what happens when a shared link already exists (does it overwrite?), what permissions are required, whether this is idempotent, rate limits, or what the response contains. The description is too minimal for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 structured with a purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections, which is organized. However, the Args section is verbose (repeating 'optional' and 'defaults to None' for each parameter) without adding meaningful context. The single-sentence purpose statement is clear but could be more front-loaded with critical information.

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 8 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the create-or-update behavior, missing parameters, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what the return dict contains. The agent lacks sufficient context to use this tool correctly without external knowledge.

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 5 parameters (file_id, access, unshared_at, password, permissions) but the schema has 8 parameters (missing can_download, can_preview, can_edit, vanity_name). The description provides no semantic details about parameter formats, constraints, or default behaviors beyond 'optional' and 'defaults to None'. This leaves 3 parameters completely undocumented.

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 ('create or update') and resource ('shared link for a file'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like box_shared_link_folder_create_or_update_tool or box_shared_link_web_link_create_or_update_tool, which perform similar operations on different resource types.

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 authentication or file permissions), when to choose 'create' vs 'update', or how this differs from other shared link tools for folders or web links. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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