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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description goes beyond them by disclosing the PAUSED default, the budget-risk reasoning behind it, and the two-step create-then-activate pattern. It also notes that cpc_bid_eur has no delivery effect under Smart Bidding, which is real behavioral context. It stops short of covering duplicate-keyword handling, batch-size limits, or error behavior.

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?

Front-loads the action in the first clause, then the safety default, then the parameter details — a sensible order. The safety rationale runs a bit long for what it conveys, but every sentence carries operative information rather than filler.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies what is missing: the mutation's default state, the activation follow-up, and the nested keyword object semantics. It would be complete with a note on duplicate handling or per-call limits for a bulk mutation.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden and largely does: it spells out the keywords item shape (keyword, match_type enum with BROAD default, optional cpc_bid_eur with its MANUAL_CPC caveat) and explains workspace as an optional slug when only one workspace exists. Only ad_group_id is left undocumentedly explained, which is the main remaining gap.

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 — creating multiple keywords in an ad group — plus the scope differentiator 'ein API-Call statt N', which separates it from the singular ads_add_keyword sibling. It also names ads_bulk_update_keyword_status as the follow-up, so the agent knows exactly where this tool sits in a workflow.

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?

Explains the safety rationale for the PAUSED default (avoiding unintended ad spend on a live ad group) and explicitly routes the agent to ads_bulk_update_keyword_status with all criterion_ids for activation. What is not stated explicitly is the boundary versus the single-keyword tool ads_add_keyword — it is only implied by 'Mehrere Keywords'.

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