Create mockup task

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true; the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: asynchronous execution, a concrete rate limit range (~2-10 calls/minute), and 429 backoff semantics. It does not disclose what happens to a task that fails, whether tasks expire, or authentication requirements, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences with zero filler; the purpose leads, the operational constraint and required follow-up come immediately after, and the error-handling rule closes. Every sentence carries distinct, load-bearing information.

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?

The async workflow, rate limit, and polling path are covered, and the mention of a returned task_key compensates for the absent output schema. However, for a six-parameter mutation tool with 0% schema description coverage, the omission of any parameter guidance leaves a material gap in what an agent needs before calling it correctly.

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%, yet the description never explains any of the six parameters: product_id, variant_ids, file_url, placement, width, or format (including the jpg/png enum and the 50-2000 width bounds). Only 'task_key' appears, and that is a return value, not an input, so the description leaves parameter semantics entirely unassisted.

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?

States a specific verb, resource, and mode of operation: 'Start an asynchronous Printful mockup task for a catalog product.' The word 'asynchronous' plus the named polling sibling get_mockup_task makes the tool's identity distinct from any sibling that retrieves results or lists products.

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?

Explicitly prescribes the follow-up workflow ('Poll get_mockup_task with the returned task_key') and gives concrete retry behavior on 429, which is actionable guidance an agent can follow without inference. It stops short of stating when a mockup task is not needed (e.g., when an existing mockup URL already suffices), so it is not a full when/when-not treatment.

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