ebay_create_item_price_markdown_promotion

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states that the tool creates a promotion via the API, but omits important details such as whether the promotion is immediately active, whether it can overwrite existing promotions, any authorization requirements (e.g., seller permissions), rate limits, or side effects (e.g., fee changes). As a mutation tool, 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 extremely concise: one sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. However, given the complexity of the input schema, a slightly longer description covering key points (like required nested fields) would be more helpful without sacrificing conciseness.

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 complex nested input schema, no output schema, and no annotations. The description fails to convey essential context: what a price markdown promotion is, common required fields (e.g., start/end dates, discount benefit), or how this differs from similar tools. An agent may struggle to construct a valid request without external documentation.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage (according to context) for the single required parameter 'request', whose description is 'Create item price markdown promotion request body'. However, the nested properties inside 'request' lack individual descriptions. The tool description adds no additional context about which fields are critical (e.g., name, dates, discount details) or typical usage patterns. The schema does the heavy lifting, so the description contributes minimal extra meaning.

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 it creates a specific type of promotion ('item price markdown promotion') via the eBay Marketing API. The verb 'Create' and resource are explicit. However, it does not explain what distinguishes a price markdown promotion from other promotion types (e.g., item promotion), and the sibling 'ebay_create_item_promotion' could be confused. A brief differentiator would improve clarity.

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 like ebay_create_item_promotion or ebay_update_item_price_markdown_promotion. There are no prerequisites, constraints (e.g., only one active promotion per item), or hints about required context. The agent is left to guess usage from the name alone.

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