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, but doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, is reversible, affects other aspects of the web link, or has rate limits. The description mentions a return value but doesn't explain what the response contains or potential 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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter and return documentation. The Args/Returns sections are standard but helpful. No wasted sentences, though the return documentation could be more informative given the lack of output schema.

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 covers basic purpose and parameters but lacks critical context about permissions, side effects, error handling, and what constitutes a successful operation. The agent would need to guess about important behavioral aspects.

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 explicitly documents the single parameter 'web_link_id' and its purpose ('The ID of the web link to remove the shared link from'), which adds meaningful context beyond the schema's 0% description coverage. However, it doesn't provide format examples, length constraints, or where to obtain this ID, leaving some practical 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 action ('Remove a shared link') and the target resource ('from a web link'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from similar sibling tools like 'box_shared_link_file_remove_tool' or 'box_shared_link_folder_remove_tool', which perform analogous 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 versus other web link management tools, 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.