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

Annotations already mark this as non-read-only and destructive, and the description adds little beyond restating that it adds positive and negative keywords. It does not disclose what destructive effects may occur, such as replacement of existing negatives, duplicate handling, or side effects on campaigns.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It communicates the core action and key options immediately.

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?

Despite moderate complexity (5 parameters, 3 required, nested keyword objects, no output schema), the description provides only a high-level summary. Missing context includes required brandId/campaignId relationships, expected behavior for negative keywords, and any return or confirmation output.

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 only 40%, so the description carries extra burden. It usefully explains the matchType enum values (Exact, Phrase, Broad) and the negativeKeywords parameter, but it leaves brandId, bid, and keyword text semantics to be inferred.

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 uses a specific verb ('Adds') and resource ('Microsoft Advertising' ad group) and enumerates positive keywords, match types, and optional negative keywords. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling add_negative_keywords, especially since negative keywords are included here too.

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?

The description implies it is for adding positive keywords to an ad group, but it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions. There is no mention of the sibling add_negative_keywords for negative-only additions, leaving the choice to inference.

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