ebay_update_fulfillment_policy

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

The description adds OAuth scope details that annotations do not cover, which is useful auth context. However, it does not disclose whether the update merges with an existing policy or replaces all omitted fields, which is meaningful behavioral information an agent would benefit from for this mutation. It does not contradict the readOnlyHint=false or idempotentHint=true annotations.

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 three short lines with the main action first and OAuth scope as necessary supporting detail. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no filler or repetition.

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 rich input schema plus idempotentHint annotation make the tool minimally callable, and the OAuth scope requirement is present. However, with no output schema and no behavioral detail about update semantics or alternative policy tools, the description leaves noticeable gaps for an agent.

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% for top-level parameters, so the schema carries the parameter documentation burden and the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter semantics, and the policy property's schema description 'Updated fulfillment policy details' is tautological.

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 clearly states a concrete verb ('Update') and a specific resource ('an existing fulfillment policy'), and the word 'existing' helps distinguish this from create/delete fulfillment policy siblings. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or describe the boundary between this and get operations, so it falls short of full 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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool versus ebay_create_fulfillment_policy, ebay_get_fulfillment_policy, ebay_delete_fulfillment_policy, or update_payment_policy. The phrase 'existing' only weakly implies a prerequisite, and no exclusions or alternatives are provided.

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