ebay_delete_item_promotion

Does 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 known, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond restating the delete action. It does not mention irreversibility, ownership or prerequisite checks, or API-specific consequences, so it contributes little beyond the 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 with the action front-loaded and no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes to identifying the operation.

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 destructive operation with full schema coverage and a destructiveHint annotation, the description plus schema is largely sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool. It lacks optional context about when deletion is allowed or what the response will be, but those are less critical given the low complexity and strong annotations.

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 coverage is 100% and the single promotionId parameter is documented as required, so the schema carries the parameter meaning. The description itself adds nothing about the parameter, but the high schema coverage keeps this at baseline.

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 uses a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('item promotion'), so an agent can tell it removes an item promotion rather than a markdown promotion or email campaign. It is clear, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling operations like pause or update, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 gives no guidance on when to delete versus pause, resume, or update an item promotion, even though such siblings exist. An agent must infer the use case from the verb alone.

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