ebay_update_return_policy

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states 'update', implying mutation. It does not disclose behavior such as whether updates are partial or full replaces, permissions needed, or error handling.

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 very concise at four words, front-loading the action. However, it could be expanded to include key constraints or common use cases without becoming 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 the tool has required nested objects and no output schema or annotations, the description is too minimal. It fails to explain what happens during an update, the role of returnPolicyId, or any behavioral expectations.

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?

Despite 100% schema description coverage, many subfields in the policy object lack descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not compensate for gaps.

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 'Update an existing return policy' clearly states the verb (update) and resource (return policy), distinguishing it from siblings like create, get, or delete. However, it lacks specificity about which fields can be updated.

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 like create or delete. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., the policy must exist) or typical scenarios.

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