MCP Server Box

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the action ('Assign') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires specific permissions, if it's idempotent, what happens on failure, or if it sends notifications. The description is minimal and lacks crucial operational details for a mutation tool.

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 clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections, making it easy to parse. It's concise with no wasted words, though the 'ctx' parameter in Args is extraneous as it's not part of the input schema and could confuse users.

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?

Given the complexity of a task assignment tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on error handling, return values beyond 'dict', and how it interacts with other task tools. For a mutation operation, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to use it correctly.

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 the parameters (task_id and email) and their types, adding basic semantics beyond the schema's titles. However, it doesn't explain format expectations (e.g., email validation, task ID source) or constraints, leaving gaps in understanding.

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 ('Assign a Box task') and the method ('to a user via email'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling tool 'box_task_assign_by_user_id_tool', which appears to assign tasks by user ID instead of email.

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_task_assign_by_user_id_tool' or other task-related tools. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether the email must correspond to an existing Box user or if the task must be in a specific state.

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