MCP Server Box

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a removal operation, implying mutation/destruction, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this is reversible, what permissions are required, if it affects associated assignments, or what happens on failure. The mention of returning 'The response from the Box API' is vague and doesn't describe success/error patterns.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose. The Args/Returns structure is clear, though 'ctx' parameter documentation adds no value for AI agents. No redundant sentences, but the structure could be more streamlined by omitting the context parameter.

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 destructive operation with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'remove' entails (permanent deletion? archive?), doesn't mention side effects on assignments, and provides minimal parameter guidance. The return value description is too vague to be useful for error handling or result interpretation.

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 documents the single parameter 'task_id' and its type, but adds no semantic context beyond what's in the schema title ('Task Id'). No information about format, validation, where to find task IDs, or relationship to other task operations. With 0% coverage and minimal added value, this falls below the baseline.

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') and target resource ('a Box task'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'box_task_assignment_remove_tool' or 'box_task_update_tool', which also modify task-related entities, so it doesn't achieve full sibling differentiation.

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 many sibling tools related to tasks (e.g., box_task_update_tool, box_task_assignment_remove_tool), there's no indication of whether this removes the entire task versus just assignments, or what prerequisites might exist. The description only states what it does, not when to choose it.

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