createMockupTask

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool returns a task ID, implying asynchronous generation, and mentions 'with your design' to indicate a dependency on prior file upload. However, it does not explain permission requirements, error conditions, or how to poll for completion. The task ID disclosure is useful but not exhaustive.

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 two short, front-loaded sentences that immediately state the primary action and its key result (task ID). It avoids repeating schema details and contains no filler. Every word contributes value.

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 rich schema with 100% coverage and no output schema, the description appropriately focuses on the essential return value (task ID) and the goal of generating mockups. It relies on the sibling getMockupTask for more detailed status/result information. While it could mention async behavior more explicitly, the task ID implicitly conveys that. Overall, it is adequately complete for this complexity.

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 100% for all 6 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter meaning beyond saying 'with your design', which loosely references the files array. It does not elaborate on option_groups or variant_ids, but the schema already defines these clearly. The description does not compensate further.

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 states a specific action: 'Generate product mockup images with your design' and clarifies it returns a task ID for status checks. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like getMockupTask (which retrieves task status) and getMockupTemplates (which lists templates). The purpose is explicit and unambiguous.

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 implies usage: you need a design and want mockup images. It hints at the follow-up workflow by mentioning 'Returns a task ID to check status', but does not explicitly name the alternative getMockupTask or state when not to use this tool. The guidance is implicit rather than clearly contrasted with siblings.

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