ebay_pause_campaign

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

Annotations provide only readOnlyHint: false, signaling mutation. The description adds no behavioral context: no side effects, no mention that pausing halts delivery, no reversibility details, no permission requirements, and no idempotency information. For a mutating action with only one annotation, the description carries the burden but does not fulfill it.

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, front-loaded with the action. However, 'through the eBay Marketing API' is redundant filler given the tool name and context, so not every word earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter mutation, the description states the core action and the schema covers the required input. However, with no output schema and no behavioral annotations, an agent is left without knowledge of return values, error conditions, or the relationship to sibling tools like ebay_resume_campaign. It is minimally adequate but has clear gaps.

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 only parameter, campaignId, has a schema description, but it is tautological ('campaignId required endpoint parameter'). The tool description adds nothing beyond the schema, yet the parameter's name is self-explanatory, so no significant deduction is warranted.

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 clear verb + resource: 'Pause campaign'. This makes the primary action unambiguous and distinguishes it from related campaign mutations like resume, end, or delete, though it does not explicitly name those siblings. It is clear but lacks an explicit differentiation statement.

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 usage guidance is provided beyond the bare action. There is no mention of when to pause versus resume, end, or delete a campaign, no prerequisites (e.g., campaign must be active), and no alternative tool pointers. The implied usage from the name is the only signal.

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