ebay_update_payment_dispute_evidence

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only states 'Update existing evidence' and OAuth scope, leaving out behavioral traits like destructive effects, merge vs overwrite behavior, or error handling for invalid evidenceId.

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 short and front-loaded with the action, but lacks formatting (e.g., bullet points for scope). Every sentence is relevant, but structure could be improved.

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?

No output schema, yet description fails to mention return behavior. Given the complexity of updating payment dispute evidence (files, line items), the description is minimal and omits important context like effect on dispute status or required evidence fields.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate; no elaboration or examples provided.

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 action 'Update existing evidence in a payment dispute' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like ebay_add_payment_dispute_evidence (add vs update) and ebay_upload_payment_dispute_evidence_file (upload file vs update).

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 this tool vs alternatives (e.g., add evidence if evidence doesn't exist). Prerequisites or context for usage are missing beyond the OAuth scope, which is technical rather than contextual.

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