printful_create_order

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the draft status, that orders are not charged initially, and the multi-step workflow (create empty order → add items → confirm). Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description enriches this with practical implementation details. No contradiction 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 perfectly concise with three sentences that each earn their place: states the purpose, explains the workflow, and clarifies the financial implication. No wasted words, front-loaded with the core action.

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 this is a creation tool with readOnlyHint=false, the description provides good workflow context. With an output schema present, it doesn't need to explain return values. The main gap is lack of parameter guidance, but the behavioral transparency and purpose clarity compensate well for a creation operation.

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%, but the description doesn't provide any parameter-specific information. It mentions 'recipient info' generically but doesn't explain what parameters are required or their semantics. The single 'params' parameter bundles all order details, but the description doesn't clarify this structure beyond the schema.

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 ('Create a new order'), specifies the resource ('in draft status'), and distinguishes from siblings by explaining this creates an empty order requiring separate item addition and confirmation. It differentiates from printful_confirm_order which would finalize the order.

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 clear context about when to use this tool ('Create a new order in draft status') and mentions the workflow ('Add items separately, then confirm to start fulfillment'). It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives, but the context is sufficient to understand this is the starting point for order creation.

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