ebay_opt_out_of_program

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It indicates mutation ('Opt-out') but provides no details on side effects, reversibility, permissions required, or what happens to related settings. This is insufficient for safe tool invocation.

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 a single sentence, making it concise but lacking structure. It does not front-load key details such as required parameter fields. A slightly longer description could significantly improve clarity without sacrificing conciseness.

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 nested parameter, no annotations, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is too minimal. It does not explain program types, expected responses, or side effects. An agent would struggle to construct the request correctly without additional knowledge.

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% (one parameter 'request' with schema description 'Program opt-out request'), and the description adds the overall action but does not clarify the nested 'programType' property. The description cannot compensate for the missing enum or format of 'programType', so it adds marginal value beyond 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 clearly states the action 'Opt-out of a seller program' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'opt_in_to_program' and 'opt_in_to_payments_program' by indicating the reverse operation. However, it does not specify what types of seller programs exist, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., opt-in tools). The description lacks context on prerequisites, such as being currently opted in, or when not to use it. This forces the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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