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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on irreversibility, permission requirements, or the required preview-confirm step that the confirm_id parameter implies.

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 a single four-word phrase with no padding, which is structurally clean. But it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise, leaving the reader with no actionable detail.

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 mutation with four parameters, no output schema, and an implied two-step confirmation flow, the description omits prerequisites, the preview requirement, and the scope of deletion. It is far from complete enough for an agent to call it safely.

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 only 50%, and the required parameter keyword_ids has no description in either the schema or the tool description. The description contributes zero parameter meaning, so it fails to compensate for the coverage 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?

The description states a specific verb+resource ('Delete SP negative keywords'), so the core action is identifiable. However, 'SP' is unexplained jargon and there is no differentiation from the very similar sibling ads_delete_sp_negative_targets, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus ads_delete_sp_negative_targets or ads_delete_sp_campaign, and no mention that a preview/confirm workflow is required. The only hint at that workflow lives in the schema's confirm_id field, not the description.

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