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. It states this is an update operation but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what the API response contains. The mention of 'Box API response' is vague and doesn't help the agent understand what to expect.

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 sized with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. The Args/Returns structure is helpful, though the ctx parameter explanation is generic and could be more specific to this tool's context.

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 and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and parameter semantics but lacks important behavioral context. It doesn't explain error conditions, authentication requirements, or what constitutes a successful update, leaving gaps for the agent to operate safely.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining all 3 parameters: assignment_id identifies the target, is_positive_outcome clarifies meaning for different task types, and message notes optionality. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't cover format constraints or examples.

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 ('Update') and resource ('Box task assignment') with specific actions ('mark it as complete or review outcome'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like box_task_assignment_details_tool (read-only) and box_task_assignment_remove_tool (deletion), though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives.

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 implies usage for updating task assignments with completion or review outcomes, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like box_task_update_tool or box_task_complete_create_tool. It provides some context about task types (review vs. complete) but lacks explicit guidance on prerequisites or exclusions.

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