ebay_upload_images

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, which is consistent with the description's write operation. The description adds key behavioral details: images expire if unused, become permanent when used, and the opt-in local file access mechanism. While it doesn't detail failure modes or rate limits, it covers significant operational behavior beyond 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 concise, with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by critical behavioral notes. It's front-loaded and avoids redundancy. The second paragraph about opt-in file access is necessary but slightly verbose; could be tightened, but overall efficient.

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 there is no output schema, the description explains the return format (EPS URLs in order) but not the exact structure or potential errors. It covers all necessary input constraints, but for a write operation it could mention error handling or side effects more thoroughly. However, it is well-rounded for the tool's complexity.

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 schema already documents 'paths' with format, allowed types, size limit, and ordering. The description reinforces the media:// resolution and directory constraints but adds little beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3, and the description provides minor confirmation of the media:// handling.

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 tool uploads local pictures to eBay Picture Services and returns EPS URLs in order, directly tied to product.imageUrls. It distinguishes itself from siblings like ebay_create_image_from_url by specifying local file upload via Media API, and ebay_upload_video for different media type.

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?

The description explicitly explains when to use it (for local images destined for inventory items) and mentions alternatives implicitly through sibling differentiation (e.g., ebay_create_image_from_url for URLs). It also provides critical preconditions: file must be in EBAY_MCP_MEDIA_DIRS or under EBAY_MCP_MEDIA_ROOT, with symlink resolution noted.

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