Write Box file

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

The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it explicitly states that existing content at the path is overwritten, which aligns with destructiveHint=true. It also adds the path scoping constraint ('relative to the Box work directory'), giving context not present in annotations.

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, each with purpose: first states the action and scope, second discloses overwrite behavior. No filler or redundancy, and the verb is 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 write action and overwrite behavior, but given the lack of output schema and 4 parameters, it leaves out parameter semantics and any return/error info. It's minimally viable for a simple write but could be more complete with a note on what happens on success or path constraints.

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 provides zero parameter information. The schema has 4 parameters (box_id, path, content, encoding) with 0% schema coverage, and the description mentions none of them. It fails to explain what 'content' or 'encoding' mean, leaving the agent to infer from names alone.

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 creates or replaces a file relative to the Box work directory, using the specific verb+resource pair 'create or replace file'. This distinguishes it from siblings like box_read_file or box_create, and there is no ambiguity about its primary action.

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 clear context that this is for writing file content, and 'relative to the Box work directory' gives a boundary. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the phrase 'Existing content is overwritten' implies destructive write use, which contrasts with read tools. No misleading guidance.

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