ebay_delete_feed_schedule

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds material context beyond them: irreversibility ('This cannot be undone'), the sole supported report type, and the required OAuth scope sell.fulfillment. That is real added value for a destructive call, though nothing is said about side effects on previously generated reports or the response.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its effect, with the destructive warning immediately after. No filler or repetition of the tool name.

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 single-parameter, unambiguously destructive tool with full schema coverage and annotations marking it destructive, the description covers purpose, irreversibility, and auth scope. Only minor gaps remain (effect on already-queued reports, return behavior), which are acceptable given no output schema.

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?

Only one parameter (scheduleId) exists and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema already noting it comes from ebay_create_feed_schedule or a list. The description adds no further semantics, so the baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the load.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Delete a Feed API schedule') plus stated outcome ('so it stops generating reports'), which cleanly separates it from the sibling ebay_create_feed_schedule / ebay_get_feed_schedule / ebay_update_feed_schedule tools. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

It states the effect of using the tool (reports stop being generated) and the applicable scope ('Schedules exist only for LMS_ORDER_REPORT, which requires sell.fulfillment'), which is genuine prerequisite guidance. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., updating rather than deleting a schedule) or explicit when-not-to-use conditions.

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