ebay_update_payment_policy

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the safety and idempotency profile is known. The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond 'update'—for instance, whether it performs a full replacement, whether omitted fields are reset, or what side effects occur. With a mutation tool and only a one-word verb, the description fails to disclose anything meaningful beyond the 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 a single sentence with no filler words. It is front-loaded with the action and the resource, making it immediately scannable. Every word earns its place.

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 an update operation on a complex nested object with no output schemaabbiamouse, the description is extremely thin. It does not explain the semantics of the 'policy' object (e.g., does it replace the entire existing policy?), does not mention that the policy must already exist, and does not reference related operations like get_payment_policy or get_payment_policies. An agent is left to infer important context from the schema and sibling names.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage: paymentPolicyId is described as 'The payment policy ID' and policy is described as 'Updated payment policy details'. The nested fields are fully typed with enums and structure. The description adds little beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate—it does not harm, but also does not enrich parameter understanding.

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 uses the specific verb 'Update' with the specific resource 'payment policy', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that operate on other policy types (e.g., ebay_update_fulfillment_policy, ebay_update_return_policy). However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from other payment-policy operations like create or delete, 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for modifying an existing policy (as opposed to creating one), nor does it note any prerequisites such as obtaining the policy ID or retrieving the current policy first. The description simply restates the tool's purpose without context for selection.

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