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 operation, the description doesn't address important behavioral aspects like required permissions, whether this creates a persistent change, error conditions, rate limits, or what happens if the file doesn't exist. The mention of 'The response from the Box API' is vague about what that response contains.

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 reasonably concise with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. However, the inclusion of 'ctx (Context)' in the Args section is unnecessary clutter since it's not a user-provided parameter, and the structure could be more front-loaded with critical behavioral information.

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 creation tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks crucial context about what a 'review task' actually is in Box's ecosystem, what permissions are required, how assignments work (since the tool mentions assignees but doesn't explain how they're specified), and what the API response contains.

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 must compensate by explaining parameters. It provides clear semantic meaning for all 4 parameters: identifies 'file_id' as the target file, explains 'due_at' as optional due date, 'message' as optional description, and clarifies the boolean flag's purpose. This effectively compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 review task') and the target resource ('for a Box file'), which provides specific verb+resource information. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling task-related tools like 'box_task_assign_by_email_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. With numerous sibling tools for task management (assignments, updates, completions, etc.), there's no indication of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or when other task tools might be more suitable.

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