ebay_bulk_update_negative_keyword

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

Annotations only include readOnlyHint: false, which signals this is a write operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that: no mention of idempotency, partial failure behavior, rate limits, required auth scopes, or what happens to existing negative keywords. For a mutation tool with minimal annotation coverage, the description carries the burden and doesn't disclose anything beyond the basic action.

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 a single sentence, concise and front-loaded with the action. It wastes no words, though it could add a bit more context without becoming verbose. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 object with two fields, no output schema, and minimal annotations. The description doesn't explain what negativeKeywordStatus values are valid, whether the update is partial or full replacement, or what the response contains. Given the complexity of a bulk operation with nested objects, the description is too thin to fully guide an agent.

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% (the 'request' property has a description 'Bulk update negative keyword request body'), so the schema already documents the top-level parameter. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, and the nested properties (negativeKeywordId, negativeKeywordStatus) are not explained in either the schema or the description. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema covers the parameter name but not the nested semantics.

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 update') and resource ('negative keyword') via the eBay Marketing API. It clearly identifies the operation and resource, and the 'bulk' qualifier distinguishes it from the sibling ebay_update_negative_keyword. However, it doesn't elaborate on what fields can be updated or the effect, so it's clear but not maximally informative.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes ebay_update_negative_keyword, ebay_bulk_create_negative_keyword, and ebay_create_negative_keyword, but the description doesn't mention them or specify conditions for choosing this bulk update over the single update. The 'Bulk' prefix implies usage for multiple items, but that's left to inference.

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