ebay_opt_out_of_program

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

readOnlyHint=false already signals mutation, and the description adds no further behavioral context. It does not disclose reversibility, side effects, permission requirements, or what happens to the seller's program status after opting out.

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, direct sentence with no filler or redundant wording. It is front-loaded and every word contributes to the meaning, even though more content would be beneficial elsewhere.

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 mutation with one nested parameter and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It leaves out what programType values are valid, how to discover current program opt-ins, whether the action is reversible, and how this relates to ebay_opt_in_to_program or ebay_get_opted_in_programs.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning about accepted programType values, which is a gap since the schema only types it as a string with no enums or examples, but the schema itself documents the nested request structure.

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 a specific verb (opt-out) and resource (seller program), making the core action clear. It is semantically distinct from ebay_opt_in_to_program, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like ebay_get_opted_in_programs or explain what qualifies as a 'seller program'.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ebay_opt_in_to_program or ebay_get_opted_in_programs. An agent is left to infer usage solely from the tool name and the verb 'opt-out'.

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