Submit Local File For PrintYourDuck Quote

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

It discloses meaningful behaviors beyond the annotations: the upload is private, no payment is collected, no instant price is returned, and explicit confirmations and user approval are required. This adds real context for the agent about side effects and user expectations.

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 three tight sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by essential constraints. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 description provides a good high-level summary and the presence of an output schema helps cover return values, but for a 15-parameter submission tool with 0% schema coverage it leaves parameter-level guidance implicit. It also does not connect to the post-submission workflow such as using get_quote_status, making it only minimally complete.

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 description needed to compensate but only mentions 'explicit confirmations' generally. It does not explain filePath, name, email, country, materialPreference, quantity, submissionId, desiredDeadline, or the individual confirmation fields. Parameter names provide some inference, so it is not a complete miss, but the coverage is inadequate for 15 parameters.

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 a specific action: upload a selected local 3D file and submit it for manual PrintYourDuck quote review. It distinguishes this from siblings by emphasizing 'manual quote review' and 'no instant price', making the tool's role obvious.

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 gives clear context: use this tool when a user has selected a local 3D file and wants a manual quote, and it requires explicit confirmations and user approval. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, but the intended usage is clear.

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