Update an existing eBay return policy by providing its ID and revised policy settings. Adjust return period, refund method, shipping cost payer, and more to match your selling terms.
Update an existing return policy
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| policy | Yes | Updated return policy details | |
| returnPolicyId | Yes | The return policy ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.14.1v1.14.1v1.8.10Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the description adds no additional behavioral context. It does not disclose whether updates are full replacements or partial merges, how unspecified fields are handled, or any side effects. The description is neutral and does not contradict annotations, but also provides no extra insight.
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 concise sentence with no filler. It is appropriately front-loaded with the action and target. However, it is extremely brief and could benefit from a sentence on usage or scope, but it avoids verbosity.
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 tool with a complex nested policy object and many optional fields, the description is too sparse. It does not explain update semantics (e.g., replace vs. merge), required fields beyond schema hints, or what the response contains. With no output schema and minimal description, an agent may not fully understand how to construct a valid update.
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% with returnPolicyId described as 'The return policy ID' and policy as 'Updated return policy details'. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, which already documents parameter purposes. The nested structure and enums are well-defined in the schema, so the description's contribution is minimal.
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 'Update an existing return policy' clearly states the verb (update) and resource (return policy), distinguishing it from create/delete operations. It is unambiguous and specific, though it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools like ebay_create_return_policy or ebay_get_return_policy, relying on the verb to differentiate.
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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus creating a new policy, retrieving one, or deleting it. It lacks any context about prerequisites, typical scenarios, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.