Reorder international shipping services in eBay fulfillment policies by moving a specified service to the front. Preview changes with dry-run before updating.
INTERNATIONALのshippingServices順序を変更（指定サービスを先頭へ）
| 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 | 先頭に移動するサービスコード | |
| 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?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior, but it only states that the order is changed. It does not mention that dryRun previews changes, that the operation is a mutation, whether it is reversible, or any side effects. The schema's dryRun field is not referenced in the description.
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 sentence with no redundancy, which is efficient. However, it is under-specified, lacking essential context like what INTERNATIONAL refers to. It is concise but not sufficiently informative.
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 tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is far too sparse. It does not explain the meaning of INTERNATIONAL, the purpose of dryRun, filter, or policyId, or how to construct a correct call. An agent would have to rely entirely on the schema, which may not provide domain context.
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 schema fully documents each parameter. The description adds no extra meaning or relationships between parameters (e.g., how filter or policyId interact with service). It does not compensate for potential ambiguities beyond the schema.
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 the action (change the order of shippingServices) and a target (INTERNATIONAL), but 'INTERNATIONAL' is ambiguous—it could refer to a policy type or a specific policy. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like add_shipping_service or remove_shipping_service, and the parenthetical 'move specified service to front' adds detail but is not fully integrated.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions. An agent would not know if this is for a specific policy scope or how it compares to other shipping-service tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.