Draft: add keywords to an ad group

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

Without annotations, the description carries full responsibility and does an excellent job by disclosing that this is a draft operation, not an immediate write, and that it returns a draftId requiring confirm_write to apply. This is crucial behavioral information beyond the tool name and title.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediate result. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the input (keywords to an existing ad group), the return value (draftId), and the necessary next step (confirm_write). It is self-contained and leaves no critical gaps.

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?

The schema provides a description for adGroupId and an enum for matchType, but the description itself only mentions 'keyword criteria' without elaborating on the parameters. With 50% schema coverage, the description adds little beyond what is already in the schema, so it's adequate but not compensating.

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 the tool drafts adding one or more keyword criteria to an existing ad group, which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_negative_keywords and update_keyword_status. It also mentions the return of a draftId and the confirm_write step, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 conveys a clear usage context: use this to draft keyword additions to an existing ad group, then call confirm_write to apply. It doesn't explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but the workflow is clear enough that an agent can infer when to use it versus other tools like add_negative_keywords or update_keyword_status.

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