ebay_add_store_category

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false; the description goes far beyond that by disclosing the asynchronous contract, the { taskId, location } response, the required polling loop until COMPLETED/FAILED, the single-in-flight-change restriction, and the subscription/auth requirement. This is unusually complete behavioral context for a mutation tool.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and parameter guidance, then the async/polling workflow and constraints. Every sentence carries information, though the parameter recap and the polling instruction could be trimmed slightly given the schema already covers parameters.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by describing the returned { taskId, location } and how to poll. Combined with auth and concurrency caveats, an agent has everything needed to invoke and follow up 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 100%, so the schema already documents categoryName, destinationParentCategoryId (including the -999 top-level convention), and listingDestinationCategoryId. The description restates the same parameter behavior without adding new syntax or edge cases, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Add one custom category to the eBay Store') and ties it to the underlying addStoreCategory API. By mentioning that only one add/rename/move/delete can be in flight, it implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling rename_store_category, move_store_category, and delete_store_category tools.

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 names the alternatives for polling (ebay_get_store_task with taskId, or ebay_get_store_tasks) and the precondition (active eBay Store subscription / sell.stores scope). It also states the concurrency constraint that blocks a new change until the prior task finishes, which is exactly the when-not guidance an agent needs.

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