Fork Box

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it explicitly guarantees the source Box is not modified, and notes the new Box is 'paid,' which has billing implications. This complements the destructiveHint false annotation without contradicting it.

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, zero fluff. The core purpose and a key behavioral trait are stated concisely, with the most important information front-loaded.

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?

The description covers the core action and a key behavioral guarantee, but lacks usage guidance and parameter details. Given the tool has 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is only partially complete for effective agent decision-making.

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 only hints at the role of box_id (as the source snapshot) but does not explain the 'size' or 'no_env' parameters. With only 33% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but fails to add significant parameter-level meaning.

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 action ('Create a new paid Box') and the specific source ('from an existing snapshot'), which distinguishes it from siblings like box_create. It also adds the important note that the source is not modified, further refining its purpose.

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 usage context (when you need a new box based on an existing snapshot) but does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like box_create. No exclusions or conditions are given, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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