box_file_set_description_tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it 'Set[s] or update[s]' which implies a mutation, but doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, if it overwrites existing descriptions, rate limits, or error conditions. The description lacks crucial behavioral context for a write operation.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Each sentence serves a distinct purpose with no redundancy. However, the 'Returns' section could be more informative given the output schema exists.

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 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but with an output schema, the description provides basic purpose and parameter identification. However, it lacks important context about permissions, error handling, and behavioral details that would help an agent use it correctly. The output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but other gaps remain.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description adds basic semantics by naming the parameters and their purposes ('file_id: The ID of the file to update', 'description: The new description for the file'), which is helpful but minimal. It doesn't explain format requirements, constraints, or examples for either parameter.

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 ('Set or update') and resource ('description of a file in Box'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like box_file_rename_tool or box_file_move_tool by focusing specifically on description modification. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from box_folder_set_description_tool, which performs a similar operation on folders.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing edit permissions), when not to use it, or what happens if the file doesn't exist. It also doesn't reference similar tools like box_file_rename_tool for other metadata updates.

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