ebay_upload_feed_task_file

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

Annotations only give readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries the burden and delivers: multipart/form-data transport, asynchronous downstream processing, per-feed-type OAuth scopes, the EBAY_MCP_MEDIA_DIRS/EBAY_MCP_MEDIA_ROOT allowlist opt-in, and symlink resolution before the check. This is exactly the operational context an agent needs before invoking a file-upload mutation.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: purpose and format constraints come first, then lifecycle, exclusions, scopes, and the local-file security model. Every clause carries information, though a single very long paragraph packed with edge cases could be broken into shorter units for scanability.

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?

Given a high-complexity async upload tool with a two-parameter schema and no output schema, the description covers formats, size limits, transport, async completion semantics, result retrieval, scope requirements, and the local-file access model. Nothing material to a correct invocation is missing.

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% and both params are documented, so the baseline is 3; the description goes beyond by tying `path` to the media allowlist, symlink resolution, accepted extensions and the 15 MiB limit, and by tying `taskId` usage to the create-call flow. It adds genuine meaning rather than restating the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Upload a local feed file to a Feed API upload task') and anchors it to the sibling that creates the task (ebay_create_feed_task). An agent can immediately distinguish this from ebay_get_feed_task and ebay_get_feed_task_result_file, which are named as the follow-on steps.

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?

Explicit about when to use it (after ebay_create_feed_task, per feed type), what to do next (poll ebay_get_feed_task until COMPLETED or COMPLETED_WITH_ERROR, then read errors via ebay_get_feed_task_result_file), and when not to use it ('Not for LMS_ORDER_REPORT or LMS_ACTIVE_INVENTORY_REPORT'). Alternatives and exclusions are all named.

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