Delete a sales tax table for a specific jurisdiction by providing its country code and tax jurisdiction ID. Removes the tax configuration for that area in eBay.
Delete sales tax table for a jurisdiction
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| countryCode | Yes | Two-letter ISO 3166 country code | |
| jurisdictionId | Yes | Tax jurisdiction ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.14.1v1.14.1v1.8.10Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, and the description's 'Delete' merely restates that. It adds no extra behavioral context like irreversibility, permission requirements, or behavior when the jurisdiction does not exist.
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?
One terse sentence with no filler, front-loading the verb 'Delete'. However, 'for a jurisdiction' adds little beyond what the schema's jurisdictionId parameter already conveys.
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?
The tool is simple (2 required params, no output schema), and annotations cover the destructive nature, so the description plus schema are nearly sufficient for a correct call. However, missing usage context and how this relates to the bulk create/replace sales tax siblings prevents a higher score.
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 already documents both parameters with descriptions (ISO country code, tax jurisdiction ID) and coverage is 100%, so the description adds no parameter meaning. The baseline of 3 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 uses the unambiguous verb 'Delete' and names the resource 'sales tax table', scoped by 'jurisdiction'. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling get/create sales tax tools even without naming an alternative.
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 when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. The description does not explain when to choose this over ebay_get_sales_tax or ebay_create_or_replace_sales_tax, nor any prerequisites such as whether the jurisdiction must already exist.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.