Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real context by disclosing the preview/owner-approval gate, requestId reuse for confirmation and recovery, and the requirement to verify status is active before claiming success. It stops short of explaining what the replace destroys (existing keywords) or how long the operation takes.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: purpose first, then the safety workflow, then a documentation pointer. The telegraphic phrasing ('Spending/deletion:', 'Claim live only when status is active.') costs a little clarity but wastes no space.

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 10-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers the approval workflow well but leaves gaps: it does not state that the operation replaces all existing campaign-level negatives, does not mention limits (1000 items) or string/object keyword forms, and references 'status' without naming soclo_ads_operation_status as the recovery path.

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 60%, so the schema carries most of the burden. The description reinforces the two operationally critical fields (confirm and requestId), but largely duplicates the schema's own wording rather than adding meaning, and it says nothing about payload.keywords semantics (full replacement, matchType handling) or why budget fields appear on a negative-keyword tool.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: replacing campaign-level negative keywords, which is distinct from the account/ad-group-level variants. It does not, however, distinguish itself from near-identical siblings such as soclo_ads_replace_campaign_negative_keyword_lists or soclo_ads_list_campaign_negative_keywords, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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 gives a clear operating procedure (preview first, then owner-approved confirm:true using the same requestId, and only claim live when status is active), which is genuinely useful. But it offers no guidance on when this tool should be chosen over the many sibling keyword tools, so selection guidance is only implied.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.