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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, non-idempotent, and open-world, so the safety bar is partly covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the "[publish]" marker signals live effect, NEGATE mutates a negative keyword list, and "Requires human approval" is a workflow constraint not present in structured fields.

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 the action modes nested parenthetically; there is no filler. The double parenthetical is dense to parse but every clause carries information the agent needs.

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 bulk mutation with no output schema and zero schema descriptions, the definition covers action semantics, required prerequisites, and the approval gate. It omits bulk-size limits and partial-failure behavior, which would matter for a batch operation but are secondary.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden, and it does explain the ids/uuids selection pair, that the negative list id/uuid is only required for NEGATE, and the valid action values NEGATE/KEEP (no enum exists in the schema). It stops short of clarifying whether id and uuid are mutually exclusive or what happens if both are supplied.

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 ("Bulk-review search terms") and enumerates the two possible outcomes, NEGATE vs KEEP, so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings like list_ads_search_terms or add_negative_keywords, leaving that inference to the agent.

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 gives a conditional rule for NEGATE (a negative keyword list id or uuid is required) and notes human approval is needed, which is useful context. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over add_negative_keywords or list_ads_search_terms, nor when KEEP should be chosen over simply ignoring a term.

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