Update eBay fulfillment policy exclusions by adding, removing, or replacing excluded regions and shipping options, with dry-run preview before applying changes.
特定ポリシーの除外設定を更新
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dryRun | No | trueでプレビューのみ、falseで実際に反映 | |
| policyId | Yes | フルフィルメントポリシーID | |
| addExclusions | No | 追加する除外項目の表示名配列。例: ["Africa", "Japan", "PO Box"] | |
| setExclusions | No | 除外リストを丸ごと置き換える表示名配列 | |
| removeExclusions | No | 解除する除外項目の表示名配列 |
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 carries the full behavioral burden, but it only says 'update' and gives no detail. It does not disclose that dryRun defaults to true (preview only), that setExclusions replaces the list, or how add/remove interact.
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?
It is a single short sentence with no filler, and the scope is front-loaded. It is economical, though its terseness limits the amount of guidance it provides.
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 schema is rich enough to allow a correct call, but the description lacks any statement about side effects, interaction among the three exclusion arrays, or return behavior. For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, it is minimally adequate rather than complete.
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 the baseline of 3 applies. The description itself adds no parameter meaning, but the schema already documents dryRun, policyId, addExclusions, setExclusions, and removeExclusions with examples.
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 clear action and resource: '特定ポリシーの除外設定を更新' (update exclusion settings for a specific policy). The modifier '特定' (specific) helps distinguish it from sibling bulk_update_exclusions, which handles multiple policies.
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?
It establishes that this tool targets a single, specified policy, but it never explicitly says when to prefer it over bulk_update_exclusions or suggests reading get_policy_exclusions first. The usage context is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.