printful_add_file

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it discloses that 'Files are processed asynchronously' and 'Returns file ID for use in orders,' which helps the agent understand timing and output usage. No contradictions with annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by key behavioral details in three concise sentences. Every sentence adds value: the first states the action, the second explains the method and purpose, and the third covers processing and output. No wasted words.

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 moderate complexity (asynchronous file upload), annotations cover safety and idempotency, and an output schema exists (so return values needn't be explained). The description adds useful context on processing and output usage, but it lacks parameter details, which is a gap since schema coverage is 0%.

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 descriptions. The description doesn't mention any parameters directly, but it implies 'url' through 'Uploads file from URL' and hints at output usage. However, it doesn't explain the four parameters (url, filename, visible, format) or their semantics, leaving significant gaps.

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 ('Add a design file'), target resource ('Printful file library'), and method ('Uploads file from URL'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'printful_get_file' by focusing on creation rather than retrieval.

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 context ('for reuse across orders') but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions the purpose but lacks guidance on prerequisites, constraints, or comparisons with other file-related operations.

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