Create Box environment

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

The description discloses that the operation is billable ('starts billable runtime') and changes external state, adding important cost and side-effect context beyond the readOnlyHint=false annotation. It also clarifies ownership by the configured Box account.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and cost implication. No unnecessary detail.

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?

While the description covers purpose and cost, it does not describe what the tool returns (e.g., an environment ID) or how parameters affect provisioning. Since there is no output schema, this information is missing.

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?

The description does not mention any of the three parameters (size, no_env, ttl_seconds). Schema coverage is 67%, but the size parameter lacks a description, and the tool description does not compensate by explaining parameter options or trade-offs.

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 uses the verb 'Provision' and specifies the resource as a 'paid Box Linux environment owned by the configured Box account,' clearly distinguishing it from managing or inspecting existing environments (e.g., box_get, box_stop). It is specific and action-oriented.

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 implies this tool is for creating a new environment but does not explicitly state when to choose it over alternatives like box_fork, which could also create environments. No exclusions or selection criteria are provided.

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