Add Keywords

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

Annotations only supply destructiveHint=false, so the description carries most of the behavioral burden. It hints that created keywords start enabled, but says nothing about duplicate keywords, partial-batch failure, per-keyword error reporting, or that match_type applies uniformly to the whole call.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is good, but for a six-parameter mutation tool it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise. The parenthetical is the only extra information and it is ambiguous.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, but the description still omits essential mutation context: duplicate handling, batch semantics, and how match_type/cpc_bid interplay with the required inputs. Only destructiveHint=false is available to characterize risk.

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 100%, so all six parameters including cpc_bid, match_type and validate_only are already documented with good detail. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the implicit '(ENABLED)' status note, which makes the baseline 3 correct.

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?

It states a clear verb and resource — 'Adds keywords to an ad group' — so an agent knows the core action without opening the schema. It offers no differentiation from closely named siblings such as add_negative_keywords, and the trailing '(ENABLED)' is unexplained shorthand.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives like add_negative_keywords for negative keywords or set_keyword_status for pausing existing ones. The agent must infer scope from the schema alone.

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