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

Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses non-atomic execution ('Nicht atomar — Create vor Remove'), the fact that match type, CPC bid and status are preserved, and a genuine data-integrity hazard for negatives. The destructiveHint is already flagged structurally, but the failure mode and the preserve-semantics are only in the description.

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-loaded with the action, then the preservation guarantee, then the risk, then the parameter note — a logical order with no filler. Small deduction for the dense, unformatted run of clauses around the negative-keyword caveat.

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 destructive, non-atomic move with an output schema already covering return values, the description covers the important risks. Minor gaps remain: no mention of permissions/access requirements or whether historical stats follow the keyword.

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 explains only workspace ('Slug des Kunden-Workspace, optional bei nur einem Workspace'); source_ad_group_id, target_ad_group_id and source_criterion_id are left to self-describing names with no note on where criterion IDs come from.

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 ('Keyword von einer Ad Group in eine andere verschieben') with clear scope, and names exactly which attributes travel with it. An agent can distinguish it from ads_add_keyword, ads_remove_keyword and ads_update_keyword_bid immediately.

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?

Explicitly bounds the use case: only positive keywords, ad-group negatives must not be moved, with the concrete consequence ('würden als positives, ausspielbares Keyword neu angelegt'). That is a clear when-not. It does not name a sibling alternative for the negative case (e.g. ads_add_negative_keyword), which keeps it from a 5.

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