Delete multiple eBay fulfillment policies at once, with a dry-run preview to check candidates and reports failed deletions for policies still linked to listings.
複数フルフィルメントポリシーを一括削除（紐づき出品がある場合は失敗扱いで報告）
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dryRun | No | trueでプレビュー（削除候補と存在確認のみ）、falseで実削除 | |
| policyIds | Yes | 削除対象のポリシーID配列 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry full disclosure burden. It does reveal that linked listings cause a failure report, but it omits other critical behavior such as permission requirements, whether deletion is atomic or partial, reversibility, or what the report contains. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
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?
A single sentence that front-loads the action and immediately states the key caveat about linked listings. Zero filler, every word earns its place.
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 bulk delete with a dryRun flag and failure reporting, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the report format, what happens on partial success, behavior for invalid IDs, or the semantics of dryRun beyond the schema. No output schema exists to compensate, so the description must carry this information but does not.
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 description coverage is 100% because both dryRun and policyIds have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 states a specific verb-resource pair ('bulk delete multiple fulfillment policies') and a distinctive behavioral condition (linked listings are reported as failures), which clearly separates it from the single-delete sibling delete_policy and other tools.
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 and name make it clear this is for bulk deletion, but it never explicitly contrasts with delete_policy for single deletions or mentions when to choose one over the other. Context implies it, but no explicit exclusion is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.