ebay_update_payment_dispute_evidence

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only states 'Update existing evidence' and OAuth scope, but does not disclose whether updates are incremental or replace all, what happens on missing evidenceId, or response behavior. Mutation tool with minimal behavioral info.

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?

Description is very short with two sentences, front-loading the purpose. However, it omits important behavioral context, making it slightly under-specified. Adequate conciseness but could include more without being verbose.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and sibling tools for adding evidence, the description lacks essential context: partial vs full update, response details, and behavior when evidence not found. Incomplete for a mutation tool.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for all 5 parameters. The description adds no extra value beyond the schema descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Update' and resource 'existing evidence in a payment dispute'. The OAuth scope specifies required permissions. Distinguishes from sibling tools like 'add', 'accept', 'contest' by focusing on updating existing evidence.

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 explicit guidelines on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Implicitly, it's for updating existing evidence (as opposed to adding new evidence), but no direct comparison or exclusion criteria are provided.

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