ebay_create_keyword

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

Annotations provide only readOnlyHint: false, indicating a write operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond 'create' – no mention of required permissions, rate limits, idempotency, or failure modes. Since annotations are minimal, the description carries the full burden but discloses nothing further. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 one short sentence, which is concise and front-loaded with the action. However, it is too sparse to be considered well-structured; it lacks any details that would help an agent, and the brevity borders on under-specification rather than efficient communication.

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?

For a write operation with a nested request object and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not mention that the keyword must belong to a specific campaign and ad group, that matchType likely has constrained values (e.g., exact, phrase, broad), or what the tool returns. An agent would need to infer too much from the schema alone.

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 description adds no explanation of parameters. The schema provides basic descriptions for campaignId and request, but inner fields like matchType, keywordText, adGroupId, and bid lack any semantics. With high schema coverage at top level, the baseline is 3, but the description fails to compensate for the nested object's lack of meaning, so a 2 is warranted.

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 'Create keyword through the eBay Marketing API' uses a specific verb (create) and resource (keyword), making the primary purpose clear. It differentiates from sibling tools like ebay_bulk_create_keyword and ebay_update_keyword, though it does not explicitly mention single vs bulk. No ambiguity about the core action.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ebay_bulk_create_keyword for multiple keywords or ebay_update_keyword for modifying existing ones. The description does not state prerequisites like an existing campaign or ad group, nor any conditions that would route an agent to a different sibling.

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