ebay_set_user_tokens

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It states tokens are 'persisted to disk and automatically refreshed', which adds critical context. However, it omits details on security (storage), overwrite behavior, error handling, or idempotency. The description partially fulfills the burden.

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?

Three sentences covering action, token acquisition, behavior, and rate limit benefit. Front-loaded with purpose. Minor redundancy ('obtained through OAuth authorization code flow' appears in both description and schema) but overall efficient. Not excessively long.

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 tool's simplicity (2 string parameters, no output schema), the description covers purpose, origin, persistence, auto-refresh, and rate limit advantages. It lacks security details or mention of the sibling with expiry, but these are not critical for basic usage. Sufficient for agent decision-making.

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% with clear field descriptions ('obtained from OAuth flow'). The tool description re-emphasizes OAuth flow and adds persistence/auto-refresh context, but this is not strictly necessary for understanding parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema already provides essential meaning.

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 'Set the user access token and refresh token for authenticated API requests', naming the action and resources. It distinguishes from client credentials by noting higher rate limits, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like ebay_set_user_tokens_with_expiry. Purpose is specific and clear.

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 obtaining tokens via OAuth authorization code flow and provides a rate limit comparison (user vs. client credentials), giving context on when to use. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use, prerequisites, or alternatives among siblings (e.g., ebay_set_user_tokens_with_expiry).

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