ebay_upload_document

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

Beyond the sparse annotations, it discloses file-format limitations, the 10 MiB cap, the required sell.inventory scope, environment-variable allowlist, media:// anchoring, and symlink resolution. These are exactly the behavioral details an agent needs before attempting a local-file upload.

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?

Three dense sentences, each carrying distinct constraints (core upload, unsupported formats/status, auth/path rules), with no filler. The main verb and target appear first.

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?

Covers the high-complexity local-file constraints well: format, size, auth, allowlist, symlink resolution, and status check. It does not describe the return value or the staging prerequisite (how documentId was created), but this is minor compared to the operational detail provided.

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?

It supplies the meaning of documentId ('staged') that the schema omits, and enriches path with EBAY_MCP_MEDIA_DIRS, EBAY_MCP_MEDIA_ROOT, and symlink behavior. With only 50% schema coverage, it compensates for the undocumented documentId but does not spell out how to obtain or validate it.

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 opening sentence names the action ('Upload'), the target ('staged documentId'), and the accepted input types and size, which is specific enough to distinguish it from fetch/create/read siblings. 'Check ebay_get_document for ACCEPTED' further places it in the document upload lifecycle.

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?

It makes the local-file context explicit ('Upload a local PDF...', media allowlist) and gives a follow-up tool to verify success. It does not explicitly name alternatives like ebay_create_document_from_url or ebay_upload_post_order_document, so the 'when not to use' guidance is absent.

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