ebay_add_payment_dispute_evidence

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention what happens on success/failure, idempotency, side effects, or whether changes are reversible. The description is generic.

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 one sentence plus the scope line, which is concise. However, it lacks structure (e.g., bullet points for key details). Still, it is short and to the point.

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?

No output schema, so the description should explain return values, but it doesn't. It also omits prerequisites (e.g., dispute must exist). The required parameter is noted in schema, but context is incomplete.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds 'evidence files and supporting information' but does not elaborate on parameter usage 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 verb 'Add evidence', the resource 'payment dispute', and the purpose 'to support your case'. It distinguishes from siblings like ebay_update_payment_dispute_evidence (update vs add) and ebay_upload_payment_dispute_evidence_file (upload vs add).

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 mentions the required OAuth scope but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update or upload). Usage is implied but no exclusions or guidance provided.

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