direct.hf.set_adgroup_negative_keywords

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and provides essentially none. It does not say whether existing negative keywords are replaced or appended, what apply/dry_run actually do, or what permissions are required for this mutation.

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 short sentence with no redundancy, but the 'Human-friendly:' prefix is filler that consumes the only available space, and the brevity is under-specification rather than effective concision.

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?

A 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage needs far more than a tautological sentence. An agent cannot safely invoke this without understanding apply/dry_run and the ad group identifier fields.

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?

Nine parameters at 22% schema coverage, and the description mentions none of them. Critically, the apply and dry_run booleans — which determine whether the call is a preview or a real mutation — are left completely unexplained in both the schema and the description.

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 ('set ad group negative keywords'), so the mutation target is unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling direct.hf.set_campaign_negative_keywords or mention scope relative to find_keywords/suggest_negative_keywords.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., that the ad group must already exist), and no mention of the dry_run/apply workflow this family clearly uses. The agent must infer everything from the name alone.

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