ebay_withdraw_offer_by_inventory_item_group

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a mutation operation ('withdraw') but does not describe side effects, prerequisites, rate limits, or response behavior. The description is accurate but lacks additional behavioral context.

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 extremely concise with two sentences: one for purpose and one for OAuth scope. There is no fluff, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's core function and authorization requirement.

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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but could be more complete. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., the offer must exist, item group must be in a valid state) or the nature of the response (e.g., success confirmation). However, the simple nature of the action justifies a baseline score.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it merely restates the parameters as 'inventory item group key and marketplace ID.' No extra details on formatting, constraints, or usage are provided.

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's purpose: 'Withdraw an offer for an inventory item group (variation listing).' The verb 'withdraw' is specific, and the resource 'offer for an inventory item group' is distinct from similar tools like ebay_withdraw_offer (likely for single items), providing clear differentiation.

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 the required OAuth scope but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., ebay_withdraw_offer for single items, or bulk operations). Usage context is implied but not expanded with when-not or alternative tool names.

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