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 states this is a removal operation (implying mutation/destructive action) but doesn't clarify permissions required, whether the action is reversible, rate limits, or what happens if no shared link exists. The mention of returning a Box API response is minimal and doesn't describe error handling or success conditions.

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 with clear sections (purpose, Args, Returns) and uses minimal sentences. However, the 'ctx' parameter documentation is unnecessary clutter since it's typically implicit in MCP tools, slightly reducing efficiency.

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, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover error cases, authentication requirements, or what the Box API response contains. The sibling tools list shows many alternatives, but no differentiation is provided, making contextual understanding incomplete.

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?

The description includes an 'Args' section that documents the single parameter 'file_id' with its type, adding value beyond the schema which has 0% description coverage. However, it doesn't explain what constitutes a valid file ID (e.g., format, where to find it) or provide examples, leaving some semantic 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 verb ('Remove') and resource ('a shared link from a file'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'box_shared_link_folder_remove_tool' or other shared link removal tools, which would be needed for a perfect score.

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 like 'box_shared_link_folder_remove_tool' or 'box_shared_link_web_link_remove_tool'. It also lacks information about prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing shared link) or context for when removal is appropriate.

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