ebay_set_user_preferences

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses PATCH semantics (omitted preferences are left as-is), the empty 204 No Content success response, the sell.account authorization requirement, and the excluded ship-to-location restriction that forces a different channel. The only gap is that it doesn't elaborate on partial-failure behavior, but the auth, mutation semantics, and response shape are all covered.

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?

Single dense paragraph with the core purpose front-loaded; each sentence carries information (PATCH semantics, header mapping, response, auth, alternative tool). Slightly overloaded with parenthetical citations (v2, HTTP PATCH) that add little for an agent, but there is no filler.

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 2-param nested mutation with no output schema, the description supplies everything required: mutation semantics, required scope, the header mapping for marketplaceId, the absence of a response body, and the tool to verify the change. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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% and the schema already enumerates every preference object and documents that marketplaceId is sent as the X-EBAY-C-MARKETPLACE-ID header, so most of the description's parameter text repeats structured data. Listing a few example preference keys (combinedPaymentPreferences, dispatchCutoffTimePreference, etc.) is only mildly additive given the full schema enumeration. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb+resource with scope: 'Change one or more seller preferences for one marketplace', citing the underlying Account API v2 setUserPreferences PATCH operation. It is immediately distinguishable from ebay_get_user_preferences, which the description explicitly frames as the read-back/confirmation tool.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use (include only the preferences to change under 'preferences'), a when-not/limitation (excluded ship-to locations cannot be changed here, My eBay only), and names the alternative flow (confirm with ebay_get_user_preferences). All three routing conditions an agent needs are stated.

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