box_collaboration_folder_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. It states this is a creation operation ('Create a collaboration'), which implies mutation/write access. It mentions authentication requirements ('Authenticated Box client') and describes some behavioral aspects like role options and access-only effects. However, it doesn't cover important behavioral traits like error conditions, rate limits, or what permissions are required to create collaborations.

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 efficiently explains the tool's purpose and parameters. The first sentence states the core functionality, followed by organized parameter documentation. While comprehensive, it could be slightly more concise by avoiding some redundancy in parameter explanations.

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 7 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does reasonably well but has gaps. It covers the core operation and parameters but lacks information about error handling, required permissions, rate limits, and the structure of the returned dictionary. The absence of output schema means the description should ideally explain return values more thoroughly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 7 parameters, the description provides substantial semantic value. It explains all 7 parameters with meaningful descriptions, including the role parameter's default value and available options, and clarifies optional parameters like is_access_only's effects. The only gap is that the schema includes 'can_view_path' parameter not mentioned in the description.

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 specific action ('Create a collaboration'), target resource ('on a folder'), and collaboration partner ('with a group specified by group ID'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling collaboration tools like box_collaboration_file_group_by_group_id_tool and box_collaboration_folder_user_by_user_id_tool by specifying it's for folders and 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. With multiple collaboration tools available (file vs folder, group vs user), there's no indication of when this folder-group collaboration tool is appropriate versus other collaboration methods. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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