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

Annotations indicate this is a mutating operation (readOnlyHint=false), and the description confirms it adds keywords, but it does not disclose potential side effects, rate limits, or idempotency. Since annotations cover the mutation aspect, this is adequate.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core action, then adds bulk support with a bullet point. It is efficient, though the bulk note is incomplete.

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?

Given the tool has 8 parameters, no output schema, and low annotation value, the description does not explain edge cases, error handling, or behavior for partial failures. It is too thin for a complex bulk-capable 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%, and the description only mentions scope, target_id, and bulk fields (target_ids, customer_ids). It fails to explain the purpose of 'account', 'keywords' nested structure, 'partial_failure', or how the bulk execution works beyond mentioning acceptance.

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 clearly states it adds negative keywords at campaign or ad group scope, using a specific verb and resource. While it doesn't reference sibling tools explicitly, the scope of negative keywords is distinct from other keyword tools in the list.

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 usage by specifying scope and target_id, but does not contrast with alternatives like google_ads_keyword_add or provide guidance on when to choose this tool over others. It gives minimal context on prerequisites or context.

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