ebay_update_negative_keyword

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context about the archiving behavior as a substitute for deletion, but does not mention permissions, side effects, or whether the update is reversible, leaving gaps in transparency for a mutation operation.

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 two sentences long, front-loading the core action and then providing key context. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff, achieving high conciseness.

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?

While the description is adequate for a simple update tool, it lacks information about the return value or success/failure indications, especially given the absence of an output schema. It also does not cover error scenarios or prerequisites, leaving the agent somewhat underinformed.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description merely repeats the example values (ACTIVE, ARCHIVED) already present in the parameter schema, adding no additional meaning or detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 the verb 'Update' and the resource 'negative keyword', specifying the action as changing status to ACTIVE or ARCHIVED. It distinguishes from sibling tools like the bulk update variant by implying individual operation, and explains that archiving is the delete mechanism due to eBay's lack of a delete endpoint.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of a delete endpoint, noting that archiving via status is the removal mechanism. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the bulk update sibling or specify prerequisites like the existence of the keyword ID.

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