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. It states this is an update operation but doesn't mention required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to unspecified fields. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 points effectively. It's appropriately sized for a 5-parameter tool, though some sentences could be more concise (e.g., 'The context object containing the request and lifespan context' is verbose).

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 5 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context (permissions, side effects), detailed parameter guidance, and output information beyond 'The response from the Box API'. This leaves the agent with insufficient information for reliable use.

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 5 parameters with basic explanations (e.g., 'The ID of the web link to update'), but doesn't provide format details, constraints, or examples. The optional parameters are noted with defaults, but overall the semantic value added is minimal beyond naming the parameters.

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 tool's purpose: 'Update a Box web link by its ID.' It specifies the verb ('update') and resource ('Box web link'), making the action clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'box_web_link_create_tool' or 'box_web_link_delete_by_id_tool', which would require a 5.

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's no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or comparison with sibling tools like 'box_web_link_create_tool' or 'box_shared_link_web_link_create_or_update_tool'. The minimal guidance is insufficient for an update operation.

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