Draft: update keyword status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses the most important behavior: the operation is a draft, returns a draftId, and only takes effect after calling confirm_write. While it doesn't mention error cases or permissions, the critical delayed-application trait is transparent.

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?

Two concise, front-loaded sentences with zero filler. The action, target, and draft-draftId-confirm_write flow are efficiently communicated in a readable structure.

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 draft operation with no output schema, the description explains the return value (draftId) and the necessary next step (confirm_write), covering the essential workflow. It lacks some peripheral details like error conditions, but the core functional context is complete.

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 already provides good coverage (67%) with descriptions for adGroupId and criterionId and an enum for status. The description adds the draft/confirm context but does not enhance parameter meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline.

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 action (pausing, enabling, or removing) on a keyword criterion in an ad group. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like update_campaign_status and update_ad_group_status by being keyword-specific, and the title emphasizes the draft nature.

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 clearly indicates this creates a draft and instructs to call confirm_write to apply the change, providing clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like update_ad_group_status or state exclusions, so it lacks a full when-not-to-use explanation.

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