box_collaboration_file_group_by_group_id_tool

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 mentions that the tool creates a collaboration, implying a write/mutation operation, but doesn't specify required permissions, potential side effects, rate limits, or error handling. The Returns section mentions 'error message' but lacks detail on failure modes. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 structured with clear sections (Args, Returns) but includes redundant information. The first sentence states the purpose, but the Args section repeats parameter names without adding much new context. It's appropriately sized but could be more front-loaded with critical usage information.

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?

Given 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description partially compensates with parameter explanations and a basic return type hint. However, it lacks crucial context for a mutation tool: no mention of authentication requirements, error conditions, or behavioral constraints. The output schema absence means the return value description ('Dictionary containing collaboration details or error message') is vague and insufficient.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides meaningful details for all parameters: file_id and group_id are explained, role lists available values and default, and optional parameters (is_access_only, expires_at, notify) have clear descriptions. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't fully cover format specifics like DateTime for expires_at.

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: 'Create a collaboration on a file with a group specified by group ID.' It specifies the verb ('Create'), resource ('collaboration on a file'), and target ('group specified by group ID'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like box_collaboration_file_user_by_user_id_tool, which creates collaborations with users instead of groups.

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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like box_collaboration_folder_group_by_group_id_tool (for folders) or box_collaboration_file_user_by_user_id_tool (for users), nor does it specify prerequisites such as needing an authenticated client or appropriate permissions.

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