Bulk update keywords

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation nature is established. The description adds the scope (applies to every supplied keyword id) but doesn't disclose side effects like whether delete is permanent, whether partial failures occur, or rate limits on 500-keyword batches. With destructiveHint already set, the description adds modest value.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the operative verb, and lists operations efficiently. No wasted words, though it could arguably add one sentence on per-operation parameter requirements without bloat.

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?

The tool has 8 parameters with a nested 'schedule' object and no output schema, and the description covers only the operation dimension. It doesn't clarify which parameters apply to which operations (e.g., set_frequency uses frequency or schedule?), nor disclose behavior when incompatible params are passed alongside an operation. For a multi-mode mutate tool, more behavioral specification is warranted.

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 coverage is 63%, so the schema documents most parameters including operation enum values, frequency enum, target_url, and idempotency_key format. The description adds mild value by naming the operation types in prose, but the description-to-operation mapping isn't explicit (e.g., no statement that 'add_tags' requires the tags param). The 37% uncovered schema surface (schedule nested object, jitter_minutes) isn't compensated by description detail.

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?

Description uses a specific verb+resource ('Bulk mutate keywords') and enumerates the exact operation types (adding tags, removing tags, setting frequency, setting target URL, deleting). It distinguishes from siblings like update_keyword (single) and set_keyword_target_url, though it doesn't explicitly name a distractor sibling.

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 word 'Bulk' implies this is for many keywords at once versus single-keyword siblings, providing implicit usage context. However, no explicit guidance is given about when to use this vs set_keyword_target_url or update_keyword, nor any mention of required project_id context or alternative tools for single-keyword operations.

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