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 for behavioral disclosure. While 'Update' implies mutation, the description doesn't mention permission requirements, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what specific aspects of the task can be updated beyond the listed parameters. It only states it returns 'The response from the Box API' without describing format or potential errors.

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 opening sentence followed by parameter documentation. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the parameter explanations could be slightly more detailed given the 0% schema coverage. No wasted words, but not perfectly 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 mutation tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It covers basic parameter semantics but lacks crucial behavioral context like permissions, side effects, error handling, and detailed return format. The description doesn't compensate sufficiently for the missing structured information.

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 four parameters with brief explanations (e.g., 'Optional new due date for the task'), which adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't provide format details for 'due_at' (datetime format) or clarify what 'message' represents in Box's context, leaving some gaps.

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 ('a Box task'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from other task-related tools like 'box_task_assignment_update_tool' or 'box_task_remove_tool' among the many siblings, 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 including other task-related tools like 'box_task_assignment_update_tool' and 'box_task_remove_tool', there's no indication of when this specific update tool is appropriate versus those alternatives.

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