targeting_keywords_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'bulk-create' and a limit, but fails to explain response behavior (e.g., what is returned, whether existing keywords are overwritten, error handling). For a creation tool, the response (like created keyword IDs) is critical missing context.

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 concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with the key action. However, it sacrifices completeness for brevity. It could include a note about response or prerequisites without significant length increase.

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?

Given the complexity (bulk create with nested objects, up to 1000 items, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It omits response behavior, does not clarify that it only creates positive keywords (though it says 'positive'), and lacks guidance on required fields beyond the schema. The presence of sibling negative keyword tools increases the need for disambiguation.

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 25% (only orgId has a description). The tool description adds no parameter details beyond the bulk nature and the 1000 limit. It does not explain campaignId, adGroupId, or the keyword structure beyond what's in the schema. With low coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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 verb 'Bulk-create', resource 'targeting (positive) keywords', and scope 'on an ad group'. This distinguishes it from siblings like targeting_keywords_update, targeting_keywords_delete, and negative keyword tools.

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 provides a clear usage constraint: 'Pass up to 1000 per call'. This helps the agent understand capacity limits. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or specify when not to use this tool (e.g., for single keyword creation). The bulk-create nature is implied.

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