ebay_upload_video

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds substantial context: the tool waits up to waitForProcessingSeconds, maps resulting statuses, enforces MP4/MOV up to 150 MB and one-video-per-listing, and explains the opt-in local file access model including symlink resolution.

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?

Two tight paragraphs: the first states the operation, result, and status behavior; the second covers the essential file-access security caveat. Every sentence contributes either to calling the tool correctly or handling its result, with no filler.

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?

With no output schema and sparse annotations, the description makes the tool self-sufficient: it explains the return value, status transitions, retry path via ebay_get_video, rejection messaging, size/format constraints, and the local path security model. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds non-obvious semantics not in the schema: valid path locations, media:// anchoring to EBAY_MCP_MEDIA_ROOT, and symlink behavior. It adds less for title/description/wait, but those are already well documented in 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?

The description names a specific operation ('Upload a local video'), walks through the Media API lifecycle (createVideo → uploadVideo → getVideo), and states the concrete return value: videoId plus processing status. It also distinguishes itself from ebay_get_video, which is the sibling used for checking a still-processing video.

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 gives explicit follow-up guidance: PROCESSING means check again with ebay_get_video, while BLOCKED and PROCESSING_FAILED expose rejection reasons via statusMessage. It also states local-file prerequisites upfront: the file must live under EBAY_MCP_MEDIA_DIRS or EBAY_MCP_MEDIA_ROOT, with symlinks resolved before the access check.

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