ebay_suppress_violation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Suppress', without explaining side effects (e.g., is suppression reversible?, does it affect listing status?, are there permission requirements?). This is a critical gap.

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 only 4 words, which is too brief. While conciseness is valued, this lacks necessary context to be effective. It does not earn its place as it omits critical information about the action's implications.

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 that the tool performs a mutation (suppression) and has no output schema, the description is woefully incomplete. It fails to explain the outcome, any prerequisites, or post-conditions, leaving the agent unable to assess consequences.

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 coverage is 100% with a clear parameter description 'The violation ID to suppress'. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score of 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?

The description 'Suppress a listing violation' uses a clear verb-noun pair indicating the action on a violation. It is distinct from sibling tools like 'get_listing_violations' which are read-only. However, it doesn't specify what 'suppress' means operationally (e.g., dismiss, hide) or its effect on the violation.

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 guidance on when to use suppression versus other actions like contesting or creating a VERO report. The description provides no context about prerequisites, alternatives, or appropriate scenarios for using this tool.

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