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. While 'Remove' implies a destructive mutation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, whether the action is reversible, what happens to existing access, or potential side effects. It mentions returning 'The response from the Box API' but gives no indication of what that response contains or possible error 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 appropriately concise with three sentences that each serve a purpose: stating the action, documenting the parameter, and describing the return. However, the Args/Returns formatting is somewhat redundant with what could be in structured schema fields, and the 'ctx' parameter documentation adds no value for the AI agent.

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 destructive mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'removing a shared link' entails operationally, what permissions are required, what the response structure looks like, or error handling. The agent lacks critical information to use this tool safely and effectively.

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 only mentions 'folder_id' as 'The ID of the folder to remove the shared link from' - this adds minimal semantic context beyond what's obvious from the parameter name. No information about format, validation, or where to obtain this ID is provided, leaving significant gaps for a required parameter.

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 action ('Remove a shared link') and target resource ('from a folder'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'box_shared_link_file_remove_tool' or 'box_shared_link_web_link_remove_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 (e.g., needing an existing shared link), when this operation is appropriate, or what happens after removal. 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.