Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• box_search_contentC
  2.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it discloses nothing beyond a bare 'search' verb. It does not reveal whether queries match file names, metadata, or content (relevant given the includeContent option), whether trashed items are excluded (includeTrashed defaults to false), or how results are ordered and paginated. The description adds no behavioral value beyond what the schema already exposes.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single ten-word sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded ('Search Box') and zero filler. It is efficiently structured, though the brevity borders on under-specification rather than representing a model of economical completeness.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  The tool has three parameters containing nested objects with eight subfields, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description is only ten words. An agent cannot determine what the folders filter expects (IDs, paths, or names), what extension format to use, what includeContent does, or what the result shape looks like. This is insufficient for the tool's complexity.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters2/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, yet it only hints that filters operate on files and folders — a loose mapping to the filters.type enum. The semantics of query, folders, extensions, limit, sortBy, direction, includeContent, and includeTrashed are left entirely unexplained. This adds only marginal value over the raw schema.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description uses a specific verb ('Search') with a clear resource ('Box' for files and folders), immediately identifying the tool as a content discovery utility. It distinguishes itself from read/save/share/analyze siblings implicitly, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the closely related box_explore_storage.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  'With optional filters' describes capability, not invocation context — it says nothing about when to use this tool versus box_explore_storage for browsing or box_read_document for retrieving a found item. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative routing guidance is provided. An agent must infer the tool's role purely from its name.

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

• box_share_contentC
  2.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral implications. It only states the action and omits side effects such as email notifications, access changes, reversibility, or behavior when both links and collaborators are requested. It is a minimal mutation statement without meaningful behavioral depth.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single direct sentence with no filler, and the primary action is front-loaded. It is efficient but sacrifices behavioral and parameter detail.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given no annotations, no output schema, nested objects, and zero schema description coverage, this one-phrase description is not sufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool. It leaves unclear how shareMethod drives the request structure, which fields are needed, and what outcome to expect.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters2/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate. It loosely maps 'shared links' to linkSettings and 'collaborators' to the collaborators array, but it does not explain shareMethod values, parameter relationships, required combinations, or how items are identified.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description identifies specific verbs ('create', 'add') and resources ('shared links', 'collaborators', 'files or folders'), making the core operation clear. It does not explicitly distinguish from the update/remove sibling tools, so it stops short of a 5.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no exclusionary routing to alternatives like box_update_shared_link or box_update_collaborators. The create/add wording implies an initial-sharing use case, but that is left entirely to inference.

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

• box_analyze_documentC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that Box AI is used, but does not clarify side effects, permissions, cost/rate implications, output format, or whether the operation is read-only. The parenthetical operation list adds some context but is not enough for an AI-backed analysis tool.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single focused sentence with no wasted words and the core idea is front-loaded. Its brevity is acceptable, though the parenthetical list is slightly incomplete relative to the analysisType enum, which prevents a perfect score.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  This is a complex tool with 7 parameters, nested option objects, six analysis modes, and no output schema. The description only provides a one-line overview and omits usage context, behavior, return expectations, and guidance for choosing analysisType. That is insufficient for correct invocation.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is high at 86%, so the schema already documents most parameters well. The description adds minimal value by listing some analysis types, but it does not explain how options, question, or file identifiers interact. A baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the load.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description names a specific verb ('analyze') and resource ('document') and lists the main operations: summarize, Q&A, extract, translate. It is clearer than the bare tool name and broadly distinguishes it from read/search siblings, though it omits 'classify' and 'extract_structured' from the parenthetical and remains somewhat generic.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives like box_read_document or box_search_content. The description simply says 'Use Box AI to analyze a document' but does not explain what makes it the right choice, what inputs it requires, or when a sibling would be preferable.

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

• box_explore_storageC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It is transparent that this returns a tree structure and does not imply mutation, but it does not disclose how depth, permissions, errors, or edge cases are handled. The core behavior is clear; the edge behavior is silent.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is one front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the core operation efficiently, though it is brief enough that it omits useful detail. The structure is appropriate, but it is not maximally informative.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  With no annotations, no output schema, and a nested options schema at 0% description coverage, the description is not complete enough for nuanced invocation. It does not describe return format, filtering behavior, default depth effects, or what 'pattern' applies to. The agent can guess a basic call but not fully understand the tool's behavior.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters2/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only clarifies that 'path' is the starting location. The nested 'options' object and its properties — depth, sortBy, pattern, includeFiles, includeSizes, includeModified — are not explained beyond their schema names and defaults. The description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description names a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('tree structure of folders/files') with a path as the starting point. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like box_search_content (which searches) and box_manage_folders (which manages). It does not explicitly name those alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus its siblings. The description implies browsing a storage hierarchy from a path, but it does not state when to prefer it over box_search_content or box_manage_folders. The agent must infer usage entirely.

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

• box_manage_foldersC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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 communicates that this tool mutates folders and can delete them, but it does not disclose auth requirements, side effects, reversibility, scope limitations, or error/response behavior.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single efficient sentence with no filler and front-loads the key actions. It earns a 4 because it is concise, though the brevity contributes to the lack of behavioral and parameter detail.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  This tool has a multi-action nested schema, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description provides only a high-level summary. It does not clarify per-action requirements, folder addressing rules, return values, or error handling, leaving significant gaps for an agent to call it correctly.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters2/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The schema provides no descriptions for action, folders, or any nested property, and the description does not explain how actions relate to fields like newName, newPath, or folderId. 'By path or ID' only hints at path/folderId and leaves the rest of the parameter semantics undocumented.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description explicitly names the resource (folders) and the specific operations (create, move, rename, delete), along with the two addressing modes (path or ID). This clearly differentiates it from sibling document, search, and sharing tools, even though no sibling is named.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of when not to use it. The only implication is that folder management belongs here, but no explicit usage conditions or exclusions are provided.

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

• box_update_shared_linkC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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 only says 'update' and does not mention that this mutates the link, whether an existing shared link is required, whether omitted fields are reset, required permissions, or what the result looks like.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Single sentence with no filler, and the core operation is front-loaded. It is concise, though extremely terse and not exceptionally informative for a mutating tool with seven parameters.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  With no annotations and no output schema, the one-line description is thin for a mutating operation. It omits behavioral context such as side effects, requirements for existing links, and how omitted parameters behave, leaving an agent to rely entirely on the schema.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The input schema already describes all 7 parameters with descriptions and enums, so the description adds no parameter-level meaning. With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline 3 is appropriate.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description states a concrete verb ('Update'), a clear resource ('shared link settings'), and the applicable scope ('file or folder'), so an agent can identify the operation. It is distinguishable from siblings like box_remove_shared_link by the 'update' action, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with alternatives.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus box_share_content, box_remove_shared_link, or box_update_collaborators. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative conditions are mentioned; usage is only implied by the verb and resource.

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

• box_remove_shared_linkB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions, reversibility, or impact on existing viewers. The text only states the action without any consequences, which is insufficient for a destructive/removal operation.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single concise sentence with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and every word contributes meaning. It is appropriately sized for the minimal content it conveys.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  With no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves out critical context for a mutating tool: how to choose between path and itemId, whether any permissions are required, and what happens to existing shared access. The provided text is too thin to ensure correct invocation in all cases.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline applies: the description need not repeat parameter details. It does not add semantics beyond the schema, though the tool's purpose implies that itemId/path and itemType identify the target item.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description uses a specific action verb 'Remove' with the resource 'shared link' and the scope 'file or folder', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like box_share_content and box_update_shared_link, since removal is a semantically different operation.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  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 does not contrast with box_update_shared_link or box_share_content, nor does it mention prerequisites such as an existing shared link. An agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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

• box_read_documentB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states a non-destructive read behavior ('without saving locally') but does not disclose output format (text vs base64), permissions/authentication needs, size limits, or whether any network call or side effect occurs. This is a meaningful gap in a 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.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  A single sentence with zero waste. The verb, resource, and key constraint are front-loaded, making it immediately scannable. Perfectly concise for the information it conveys.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  No output schema and no annotations leave the description responsible for explaining return values and invocation context. It only states 'read document content without saving locally'—it does not mention how to specify the file, what the response looks like, or that text/base64 can be chosen. An agent would not know what to expect when calling it.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters2/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema coverage is 67%, and all parameters have at least a brief description, but the tool description adds no parameter-level meaning. It does not mention that fileId and path are alternatives or that options.asText controls text/base64 output. The description fails to compensate for the moderate schema coverage gap.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  Description uses specific verb 'read' and resource 'document content' plus the key constraint 'without saving locally', distinguishing it from sibling tools like box_save_documents and box_share_content. This is a clear, non-tautological purpose statement.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies the use case—reading content without persisting locally—but gives no explicit 'when to use' vs 'when not to use' guidance, and does not mention any sibling alternatives. An agent has to infer from the name and siblings that this is for reading rather than saving, sharing, or analyzing.

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

• box_save_documentsB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one genuinely latent side-effect: 'automatic folder creation' — behavior an agent could not predict from the tool name alone. However, it stays silent on the failure profile of the overwrite=false default and on what happens when createFolders=false and the parent folder is missing.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  A single ten-word sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded; 'multiple' and 'automatic folder creation' each add real scoping information. There is no wasted wording.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a write tool with zero annotations, no output schema, a nested array parameter, and nine siblings, the description is under-specified. The unstated consequence of the overwrite=false default, the absence of any routing context, and no note on return or permission behavior are material gaps an agent will encounter in real calls.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Top-level schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add parameter meaning. It partially does — 'multiple documents' maps to the documents array and 'automatic folder creation' explains the createFolders default — but it says nothing about the overwrite option or the expected path/content entry shape, which is only partially covered by nested schema descriptions.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description uses a specific verb ('Save') with a clear resource ('documents to Box storage') and adds distinguishing scope ('multiple') plus a distinctive behavioral trait ('automatic folder creation'). This cleanly separates it from siblings like box_read_document, box_manage_folders, and box_explore_storage without needing to inspect the schema.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  No guidance is given on when to prefer this tool over its nine siblings. There are no conditions, exclusions, or named alternatives — an agent must infer routing from the name alone, such as choosing box_manage_folders when no document content needs saving.

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

• box_update_collaboratorsB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It explicitly discloses the potentially destructive 'remove collaborators' action, which is useful. However, it does not mention permission requirements, whether updates are applied atomically, reversibility, or effects on existing access, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence with no redundant phrasing. It front-loads the core action and resource scope, wasting no words.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a batch mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It lacks usage context, prerequisite information, and behavior around the updates array. An agent is left without enough guidance beyond the raw schema to know how to safely and correctly invoke the tool.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that roles can be updated and collaborators removed, and that the target is a file or folder, which maps to itemType and the updates array. It does not describe path or itemId, and does not clarify how the updates array should be structured beyond what the schema already shows, so compensation is partial.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description states a precise action — updating collaborator roles or removing collaborators — on a specific resource (file/folder). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like box_update_shared_link, which targets shared link settings, and box_share_content, which is about sharing rather than permission changes.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  No guidance is given on when to choose this tool over box_share_content or box_update_shared_link. The description implies a use case for managing collaborator permissions but does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or when an alternative would be more appropriate.

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