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 of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a removal operation, implying it's destructive, but doesn't specify if this requires special permissions, is reversible, or has side effects (e.g., notifications, audit trails). The mention of returning 'The response from the Box API' is vague and doesn't describe success/error behavior or rate limits.

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 brief sentences. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by parameter and return details. However, the Args/Returns formatting is slightly verbose for such simple content, and the 'ctx' parameter is irrelevant to the agent and could be omitted.

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 this is a destructive operation with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical context: behavioral traits (permissions, reversibility), parameter details (ID format), output expectations, and differentiation from sibling tools. For a mutation tool with these gaps, it should provide more guidance.

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 'assignment_id' as 'The ID of the task assignment to remove', which adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's title 'Assignment Id'. No details on ID format, sourcing, or validation are 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 verb ('Remove') and resource ('Box task assignment'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'box_task_remove_tool' or 'box_task_assignment_update_tool', which would require more context about what distinguishes removing an assignment from removing a task or updating an assignment.

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. With sibling tools like 'box_task_remove_tool' and 'box_task_assignment_update_tool', it's unclear when removal of an assignment is appropriate compared to removing the entire task or updating the assignment. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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