ebay_create_ad_group

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

Annotations only include readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation is a creation, but does not mention whether the campaign must already exist, whether the operation is idempotent, what side effects occur, or what the response contains. No behavioral details beyond the bare "Create" are provided.

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 with no filler or redundant phrases. It is efficiently front-loaded, though the phrase "through the eBay Marketing API" adds little value beyond what the tool name already implies.

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 is relatively simple with only two parameters and full schema coverage, but there is no output schema and the description does not mention return values, prerequisites, or the fact that the ad group is created within the campaign identified by campaignId. It is minimally viable but leaves the agent to infer campaign-level behavior.

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%: campaignId and request both have descriptions, and the request schema marks name as required and documents defaultBid. The description itself adds no parameter semantics, but the schema already covers the inputs, 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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: "Create ad group", which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like ebay_get_ad_group, ebay_update_ad_group, and ebay_delete_campaign. It does not, however, explain what an ad group is or its relationship to a campaign, so the purpose is clear but thin.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no context such as "use this to add an ad group to an existing campaign." The verb "Create" implies usage only by default, but no explicit or implicit context is provided.

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