Remove a shipping service from an eBay international fulfillment policy. Preview changes with dry-run before updating, using policy ID or name filter.
INTERNATIONALからshippingServiceを削除
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dryRun | No | trueでプレビュー、falseで更新 | |
| filter | No | ポリシー名の部分一致フィルタ | |
| service | Yes | サービスコード | |
| policyId | No | フルフィルメントポリシーID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not reveal that dryRun defaults to true (preview mode), does not state whether removal is destructive or reversible, and does not explain how the 'INTERNATIONAL' scope interacts with the filter or policyId parameters. For a deletion tool this is a significant gap.
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 a single short sentence, which is structurally simple, but this brevity is under-specification rather than efficient conciseness. No structured guidance (scope, safety, alternatives) is front-loaded; the sentence earns its place but says too little.
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 deletion tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits dryRun semantics (preview vs apply), the meaning of INTERNATIONAL, the relationship between filter and policyId, and what happens after the service is removed.
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%, so the baseline is 3; the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema and, if anything, the 'INTERNATIONAL' reference could confuse an agent about which parameter controls scope, since no parameter description mentions INTERNATIONAL.
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 verb (削除/delete) and a resource (shippingService), so the basic purpose is identifiable. However, 'INTERNATIONAL' is an unexplained scope term that doesn't map clearly to any parameter (filter, policyId, service) and does nothing to distinguish this tool from siblings like add_shipping_service or list_shipping_services. The purpose is only partially clear.
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 given on when to use this tool versus the alternatives. There is no mention of when to prefer remove_shipping_service over delete_policy, bulk_delete_policies, or add_shipping_service, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.