ebay_add_payment_dispute_evidence

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the OAuth scope requirement but does not disclose whether the operation is idempotent, what happens if evidence already exists, or any rate limits. As a mutation tool, it should provide more context on side effects and preconditions.

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 two sentences plus OAuth scope information. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose. However, the full OAuth URL is verbose and could be shortened to just the scope name. Still, overall efficient with minimal waste.

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 the complexity of 5 parameters, no output schema, and the need to use a sibling tool (upload) first, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, prerequisites, or the workflow integration with ebay_upload_payment_dispute_evidence_file. The description leaves significant gaps for an agent to use 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema; it merely repeats the purpose. No extra contextual information about parameters (e.g., relationship between files and lineItems) is provided.

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 identifies the tool as adding evidence to a payment dispute, specifying the verb 'Add' and resource 'evidence' for 'payment dispute'. It distinguishes from siblings like ebay_upload_payment_dispute_evidence_file and ebay_update_payment_dispute_evidence by focusing on the act of providing evidence files and information. However, it could be more explicit about the prerequisite of using the upload tool to obtain file IDs.

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 mentions the required OAuth scope, which is helpful, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like upload or update. It does not state that evidence files must first be uploaded via ebay_upload_payment_dispute_evidence_file to get file IDs, nor does it specify any conditions or exclusions for use.

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