box_file_set_download_company_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'set[s] a file to be downloadable by company users' and 'restricts external user downloads for viewer/editor roles,' implying a mutation that changes permissions. However, it doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether the change is reversible, rate limits, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 appropriately sized and well-structured. It starts with a clear purpose statement, followed by 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant information. However, it could be slightly more front-loaded by integrating the parameter explanation into the main description for faster comprehension.

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 the tool's complexity (a mutation with permission changes), no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is moderately complete. It explains the purpose and parameter well but lacks behavioral context like permissions, side effects, or error handling. The output schema covers return values, so the description doesn't need to explain those. However, for a mutation tool, more behavioral disclosure would improve completeness.

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 includes an 'Args' section that documents the single parameter 'file_id' with its type ('str') and purpose ('The ID of the file to update'). Since schema description coverage is 0% (the schema only provides a title 'File Id' without description), the description fully compensates by adding clear parameter semantics. With 0% schema coverage and 1 parameter, the description does an excellent job explaining the 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 tool's purpose: 'Set a file to be downloadable by company users (restricts external user downloads for viewer/editor roles).' It specifies the verb ('set'), resource ('file'), and effect ('downloadable by company users'), making it clear what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its siblings like 'box_file_set_download_open_tool' or 'box_file_set_download_reset_tool', which appear to be related download permission tools.

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_file_set_download_open_tool' or 'box_file_set_download_reset_tool', nor does it specify prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions for usage. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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