I feel designating ethics the study of 'right and wrong' elides practical judgements and moral ones by using superficially similar terms in totally different domains. And if you say ethics is the study of what is ethically right and wrong, that's close to tautological, rather than explanatory.
I find it useful to look to a word's origins. From Etymonline:
Ethics: from Greek ēthike philosophia "moral philosophy," fem. of
ēthikos "ethical, pertaining to character," from ēthos "moral
character," related to ēthos "custom".
Ethos: "habitual character and disposition; moral character; habit,
custom; an accustomed place," in plural, "manners,"
I like the framing that it involves customs or manners, because I think it is important to note it is a field where there is not usually a single analysis, or unambiguous choices. Rather, sets of interacting behaviours that link personal choices and reasoning, with social outcomes. That's important to me because I look for insight into ethics from game theory, where it's not about 'right and wrong', but rather managing personal and social priorities in interactions.
When we consider what good character is, and character development, we find it natural to avoid being prescriptive, and instead look towards active directions of development. Personally I see that as a good template for ethics generally, where prescriptively stating behaviour that just shouldn't be done isn't useful (eg Kant, who says you shouldn't lie even to 'a murderer at the door').