ebay_delete_return_policy

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description 'Delete a return policy' simply restates that destructive nature without adding context. It does not disclose irreversibility, effects on related policies, or any other behavioral trait beyond what the annotation already conveys. No contradiction is present.

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 a single concise sentence, 'Delete a return policy', which is appropriately sized for a simple operation. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, contains no filler, and every word is necessary.

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 tool has a single parameter and the annotations already establish its destructive nature, the description is minimally adequate. However, it omits any note on prerequisites, such as whether the policy must exist or what happens to associated listings. This is acceptable but not complete for an agent that might need downstream context.

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 schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'returnPolicyId' with its description 'The return policy ID'. The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage applies.

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 states the specific verb 'Delete' and the resource 'return policy', making the action clear and unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling delete tools (e.g., ebay_delete_fulfillment_policy), but the resource name is distinctive enough to avoid confusion. A score of 4 reflects the lack of explicit sibling distinction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions under which deletion is appropriate. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and schema, which is insufficient.

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