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. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether removal only detaches from the campaign, whether the underlying keyword groups persist, whether the operation is reversible, or what happens when a named group is missing.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, no filler. It is appropriately sized for what it contains, though its brevity is partly the cause of the missing behavioral 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 no output schema, the description should cover outcome semantics (detach vs. delete, error behavior on missing groups). With 100% schema coverage the parameter side is complete, but the behavioral side leaves a gap an agent would want filled before invoking a destructive 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 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter thoroughly (including the channel_id fast-path). The description's only added signal is the 'and/or' optionality of the two map parameters, which is marginal. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (remove) and two specific resource types (keyword groups, negative keyword list attachments) scoped to the campaign's GOOGLE_ADS channel. It distinguishes itself from keyword-list tools like remove_keywords_from_negative_list by specifying the channel attachment, though the 'keyword groups' vs. tool-name 'keywords' wording creates mild ambiguity.

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 'and/or' phrasing implies the two removal modes are optional and combinable, which is useful. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and it never routes the agent toward or away from similar siblings like remove_keywords_from_negative_list.

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