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 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't address permissions required, whether the operation is idempotent, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens to existing tasks. It only states the return is 'The response from the Box API' without describing format or success indicators.

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 Args/Returns sections. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the 'ctx' parameter documentation adds minimal value for an AI agent and could be omitted for better conciseness.

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 4 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks critical information about permissions, error handling, return format details, and how this tool relates to other task management tools in the sibling list.

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 all 4 parameters with basic type information and one default value, adding meaningful context beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't explain parameter interactions, constraints (e.g., message length limits), or provide examples of valid values for 'due_at' format.

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 ('Create a new completion task') and target resource ('for a Box file'), providing specific verb+resource pairing. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling task tools like 'box_task_review_create_tool' or 'box_task_update_tool', which prevents a perfect score.

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_review_create_tool' or 'box_task_update_tool'. It mentions no prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases, offering only basic parameter documentation without contextual usage information.

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