ebay_update_feed_schedule

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, indicating a write operation. The description adds that eBay validates fields against the current template and returns 204, which is useful behavioral info beyond annotations. However, it omits other key behaviors: whether changes are reversible, if validation errors return 400, permission nuances, or rate limits. Some credit for extra context, but still gaps.

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?

Two compact sentences with zero waste. The key action is front-loaded, followed by essential constraints. Efficient and well-structured.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the core operation and some constraints but misses important context: full permission details, error behaviors, and the fact that only some fields are valid depending on the template. Adequate but incomplete.

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 schema fully documents both parameters. The description lists some fields but adds no syntax, format, or constraint details beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (update) and resource (Feed API schedule), and enumerates the updatable fields (name, trigger hour/day, start/end dates, schemaVersion). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like ebay_create_feed_schedule or ebay_delete_feed_schedule, but the verb 'update' distinguishes it reasonably. Clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 provides some usable context: it states schedules exist only for LMS_ORDER_REPORT and require the sell.fulfillment scope. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create or delete), nor does it mention preconditions like needing an existing schedule. Implied usage but not explicit routing.

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