MCP Server Box

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Create' implies a write operation, the description doesn't mention authentication requirements, permission levels needed, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if a web link with the same name already exists. It mentions the return is 'The response from the Box API' but provides no details about the response structure or what success/failure looks like.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns) and uses bullet-like formatting. It's appropriately sized for a 4-parameter tool. The opening statement 'Create a Box web link' is front-loaded. However, the inclusion of 'ctx (Context)' in the Args section adds unnecessary technical detail that doesn't help the AI agent understand tool usage.

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, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'Box web link' actually is (versus a regular file/folder or shared link), doesn't mention authentication requirements, and provides minimal guidance on parameter usage. The return value description is vague ('The response from the Box API') with no indication of structure or key fields.

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 provides a parameter list with basic explanations (e.g., 'The URL of the web link', 'The ID of the parent folder'), which adds value beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't explain format requirements (URL validation, folder ID format), constraints, or provide examples. The optional parameters are noted but without guidance on when to use them.

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 'Create' and the resource 'Box web link', making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like box_web_link_get_by_id_tool and box_web_link_update_by_id_tool by focusing on creation rather than retrieval or modification. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other creation tools in the list.

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. There are multiple sibling tools for web links (get, update, delete, shared link operations), but the description doesn't indicate when creation is appropriate versus using shared link tools or other approaches. No prerequisites or contextual usage information is provided.

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