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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds genuine value beyond that: it explains why the operation matters (a wrong negative silently blocks real searches) and documents the confirm=false dry-run preview behavior, which is not in the schema. It stops short of noting permission requirements or whether removal is reversible.

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-loads the action and scope, then adds rationale and parameter notes in two dense sentences with no padding. The second sentence is a compressed run-on of three parameter facts, but each clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. With a 5-parameter, 0%-documented schema, the description covers the non-obvious parameters and the dry-run flag, leaving only account_id/entity_id to inference. Complete enough for correct invocation.

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 the load, and it does for the critical parameters: keywords must be comma-separated texts exactly as listed by list_microsoft_negative_keywords, entity_type accepts Campaign | AdGroup, and confirm=false previews. It adds no semantics for account_id or entity_id, but the remaining three parameters are well covered.

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 (REMOVES) plus resource (negative keywords) and platform scope (Microsoft/Bing campaign or ad group), and explicitly positions it against siblings add_microsoft_negative_keywords and list_microsoft_negative_keywords. An agent can distinguish it from remove_negative_keyword and remove_microsoft_ad_extensions 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?

Gives clear context: it is the undo for a mistakenly added negative, and points to list_microsoft_negative_keywords to obtain the exact keyword texts. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over the generic remove_negative_keyword, but the Microsoft scoping in the name and text makes the choice reasonably clear.

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