Delete an eBay fulfillment policy by providing its ID to remove it from your account.
Delete a fulfillment policy
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fulfillmentPolicyId | Yes | The fulfillment policy ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.8.10Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the destructive nature is covered. However, the description adds no further context such as permanence, irreversibility, or any side effects beyond what the verb 'delete' implies. It does not contradict 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?
A single concise sentence with zero redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a simple delete operation and front-loads the action clearly.
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 low complexity (one parameter), complete schema, and annotations covering the destructive nature, the description is adequate. It does not mention return behavior, but for a delete operation that is typically implicit. Minor gap: no mention of consequences if the policy is in use, but that is not critical for an agent to call the tool correctly.
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% (the only parameter has a description 'The fulfillment policy ID'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.
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 'Delete a fulfillment policy' clearly states the verb (Delete) and the specific resource (fulfillment policy). It distinguishes from the many sibling delete tools (e.g., delete_notification_subscription, delete_inventory_item) by naming the exact resource type.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update or get. It does not mention any prerequisites (e.g., policy not in use) or exclusions. The agent must infer usage solely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.