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

Annotations already mark this as a non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world mutation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explains how match types block searches, why EXACT is the safe default, and warns that PHRASE/BROAD should only be used deliberately after user notification.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then adds relevant match-type guidance. The match-type explanation is somewhat lengthy, but it earns its place because the schema does not document those semantics elsewhere.

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 tool has three parameters, two required, and no schema descriptions; the description covers `keywords` and `workspace` but omits the required `campaign_id`. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the missing required-parameter meaning is a meaningful completeness gap for a mutation tool.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does well for `keywords` by documenting the object shape, match_type values, defaults, and blocking behavior, and it explains that `workspace` is optional when only one workspace exists. However, it never explains the required `campaign_id` parameter, leaving one of three parameters undocumented.

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 specific verb and resource: creating multiple negative keywords in a campaign, with the efficiency rationale "ein API-Call statt N". This clearly distinguishes bulk negative keyword creation from single-add and bulk positive-keyword tools, although it does not explicitly name the sibling alternatives.

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?

Usage is implied by "Mehrere negative Keywords" and "ein API-Call statt N", which suggests using this tool when adding multiple negatives rather than calling a single-add tool repeatedly. It gives strong guidance for match_type selection, including a safe default and a warning to tell the user before creating PHRASE/BROAD terms, but it does not explicitly compare this tool with sibling tools.

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