Draft: add negative keywords to an ad group

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It clearly states that the tool only creates a draft, does not apply changes immediately, and returns a draftId that requires confirm_write. This is critical behavioral information beyond the schema and significantly improves transparency.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences that front-load the action and purpose, then disclose the draft flow and next step. Every word earns its place with no redundant information.

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 is quite complete. It explains the draft behavior, return value (draftId), and follow-up action (confirm_write). It does not mention potential errors, permissions, or limits, but for the core use case it provides sufficient context.

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 50% (only adGroupId has a description). The description provides high-level context ('negative keyword criteria') but does not elaborate on the 'keywords' structure or matchType semantics. The schema already explains adGroupId, so the description adds marginal value over the schema for params.

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's function: 'Draft adding one or more negative keyword criteria to an ad group, to stop ads showing for those terms.' This is a specific verb-resource-action combination that distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'add_keywords' (which adds positive keywords). The purpose is unambiguous and well-scoped.

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 explicitly guides usage by noting this is a 'Draft' operation and instructing to 'call confirm_write to actually apply it.' This tells the agent when to use this tool versus a direct mutation. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like 'add_keywords' or provide when-not-to-use scenarios, but the draft/confirm flow is clear.

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