ebay_upload_payment_dispute_evidence_file

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

The description discloses the required OAuth scope and that the tool returns a file ID. It does not specify potential limitations like file size or overwrite behavior, but for a file upload tool, this is reasonably transparent.

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 and an OAuth line, front-loading the purpose. Every part adds value without redundancy.

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?

The description mentions the return value (file ID) despite no output schema, which is helpful. It covers the core flow but omits potential details like file size limits or encoding specifics, which are partially addressed by the schema.

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 already provides 100% parameter descriptions (base64 data, filename, paymentDisputeId). The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond examples, meeting the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 tool uploads a file as evidence for a payment dispute, provides examples of file types, and specifies the return value (file ID). It distinguishes itself from siblings like ebay_add_payment_dispute_evidence and ebay_fetch_payment_dispute_evidence_content by linking the output to the next step.

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 implies usage by stating the purpose and the relationship to add_evidence. It does not explicitly mention when to use it vs. alternatives, but the context of payment disputes and the sibling list make it clear enough.

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