ebay_create_ads_by_inventory_reference

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only indicates that the tool creates ads (a write operation) and restricts to CPS campaigns. It does not disclose behavioral traits like idempotency, required permissions, rate limits, or effects on existing data. Given zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 very concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core action. It is efficient but could be slightly improved by combining the two sentences or adding more context without becoming verbose.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (nested objects, required fields, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It does not explain the request structure beyond the schema, nor preconditions (e.g., campaign must exist and be CPS type). The response format is undocumented. More context is needed for an agent to correctly invoke this tool.

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%, with all parameters already described in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema provides. The constraint 'CPS campaigns only' is a usage guideline, not parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool creates ads using Inventory API references and restricts usage to CPS campaigns only. This distinguishes it from related tools like ebay_bulk_create_ads_by_inventory_reference and ebay_create_ads_by_listing_id.

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 specifies that the tool is for CPS campaigns only, which provides a clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives (e.g., bulk version or listing ID versions), though sibling tools imply those options.

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