add_negative_keywords

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose the most important trait: 'Dry run unless confirm=true.' It also reveals the default match type. It does not cover permissions, idempotency, or error conditions, but it gives the safety-critical behavior upfront.

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 compact sentences with no filler. The purpose and placement are first, then match type, then the critical dry-run behavior; every clause earns its place.

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 description is mostly complete for a moderately complex tool: it identifies placement, match type, and default dry-run mode. The main gap is that it never explicitly states that one of campaign_id/ad_group_id should be supplied or what happens if both/neither are set, though 'or' implies the intended exclusivity.

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 0%, but the description compensates by explaining match_type values/default, tying campaign_id and ad_group_id to placement levels, and defining confirm's dry-run semantics. customer_id and the exact format/syntax of keywords are not described, but the main disambiguating parameter details are present.

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 states a specific action ('Add NEGATIVE keywords') on a defined resource with placement levels (campaign_id / ad_group_id). The capitalized 'NEGATIVE' distinguishes it from the sibling add_keywords tool.

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?

It clearly scopes when to use this tool: adding negative keywords at campaign or ad-group level, with match-type control and dry-run by default. It does not explicitly call out alternatives or exclusions, but the negative-keyword framing and sibling list make the choice clear.

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