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. It states this is a deletion operation (implying destructive action) but provides no additional context about permissions required, whether deletion is permanent/reversible, rate limits, or what the API response contains. The description mentions a return value but doesn't explain 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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter and return documentation. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the Args/Returns formatting could be more integrated. It's appropriately sized for a single-parameter tool without unnecessary elaboration.

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 deletion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address critical context like authentication requirements, error conditions, whether deletion affects shared links, or what the response dict contains. The agent lacks sufficient information to use this tool safely and effectively.

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 'web_link_id' and explains it's 'The ID of the web link to delete,' which adds meaningful context beyond the schema's title 'Web Link Id.' However, it doesn't provide format examples, validation rules, or where to find this ID, leaving some semantic 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 specific action ('Delete') and target resource ('a Box web link by its ID'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like box_web_link_create_tool and box_web_link_update_by_id_tool. It uses precise verb+resource language that leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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. While it's clear this deletes web links, there's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., permissions needed), when deletion is appropriate versus updating, or what happens to related resources. The agent must infer usage context from the tool name alone.

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