Update an existing eBay email campaign by modifying subject, items, audience, price range, promotion, or schedule through the Marketing API.
Update email campaign through the eBay Marketing API.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| request | Yes | Update email campaign request body | |
| emailCampaignId | Yes | emailCampaignId required endpoint parameter |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.14.1Input schema / properties / emailCampaignRemoved value: -{
- "additionalProperties": {},
- "description": "Updated email campaign configuration",
- "type": "object"
-}Input schema / properties / emailCampaignId / descriptionPrevious value: -"Email campaign ID"New value: +"emailCampaignId required endpoint parameter"Input schema / properties / requestAdded value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "description": "Update email campaign request body",
+ "properties": {
+ "audienceCodes": {
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "categoryId": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "categoryType": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "itemIds": {
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "itemSelectMode": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "personalizedMessage": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "priceRange": {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "maxPrice": {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "currency": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "value": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "minPrice": {
+ "$ref": "#/properties/request/properties/priceRange/properties/maxPrice"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "promotionId": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "promotionSelectModeEnum": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "scheduleDate": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "sort": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "subject": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "emailCampaignId",
- "emailCampaign"
-]New value: +[
+ "emailCampaignId",
+ "request"
+]v1.8.10Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, idempotent operation, so the description does not need to restate those facts. However, it adds no additional behavioral context: it does not describe what happens to existing campaign settings, whether fields are patched or replaced, what permissions are needed, or what errors are likely. Since there is no output schema, the description leaves important behavior undisclosed.
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 concise and front-loaded, but its only substantive content is nearly identical to the tool name. It has no waste, yet it also contributes little new information. This is more under-specification than achieved brevity.
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 accepts a complex nested 'request' object with many undocumented subproperties, yet the description offers only a one-line overview. With no output schema and no explanation of update semantics, required fields, or response behavior, the description is not complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool confidently.
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% at the top level, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, and the nested request properties have type information but no semantic explanations. An agent can still inspect the schema, but the description does not help clarify which fields matter for an update.
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 and resource: 'Update email campaign through the eBay Marketing API.' This identifies the tool's purpose well enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like ebay_create_email_campaign, ebay_get_email_campaign, and ebay_delete_email_campaign. It does not add much differentiation beyond the resource name, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as ebay_create_email_campaign or ebay_update_item_promotion. There are no stated prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where another tool would be preferable. An agent must infer usage entirely from the name and schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.