ebay_bulk_create_negative_keyword

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

Annotations only include readOnlyHint: false, which indicates a write operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that—no mention of side effects, irreversibility, required authentication, rate limits, or what happens to existing keywords. Since the annotation already signals mutation, the description contributes no additional transparency.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. There is zero fluff, and the sentence directly conveys the action and target. It is appropriately concise for a tool with a clear function.

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 tool has a nested request structure with multiple fields, yet the description offers no guidance on how to construct the request, which fields are required (the schema marks only two fields required inside each item, but adGroupId and campaignId are not required—a potentially confusing omission), or what the response contains. No output schema exists, so the agent is left without return-value expectations. Given the complexity, the description 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 description coverage is 100% because the 'request' property has a description, but the individual fields (adGroupId, campaignId, negativeKeywordText, negativeKeywordMatchType) lack descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not explain any parameter semantics, such as required fields or match type options. With high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate, but the description adds no value 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 states a specific verb ('bulk create') and a clear resource ('negative keyword') and names the API context ('eBay Marketing API'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like ebay_create_negative_keyword (single create) and ebay_bulk_update_negative_keyword (update) by explicitly indicating bulk creation. This gives the agent a precise understanding of what the tool does without needing to open the schema.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it should be used for creating multiple negative keywords at once, nor does it explain when to prefer the single-create variant (ebay_create_negative_keyword). The 'bulk' prefix implies multi-item usage, but no direct statement of context or exclusions is provided.

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