Ad Groups Add Keywords

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'adds' is consistent with a mutating but non-destructive operation. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond that: it does not mention duplicate handling, default status behavior, validate_only dry-run capability, or consequences for existing keywords. It merely restates the basic action.

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 a single, clear, front-loaded sentence: 'Adds keywords to an ad group.' It contains no filler or repetition and is appropriately sized for such a straightforward operation.

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 schema and output schema carry most of the burden, so an agent can likely invoke this tool correctly. Still, the description lacks important context around duplicate handling, positive-versus-negative keyword distinction, and when to prefer sibling tools, leaving meaningful gaps for selection and behavior.

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%, and the schema already provides rich parameter details such as match type guidance, CPC bid semantics, and validate_only behavior. The description itself contributes no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: 'Adds keywords to an ad group.' This is specific and unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool ad_groups_add_ad_group_negative_keywords, so an agent may need to inspect names or schemas to determine which 'add keywords' tool is appropriate.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that this is for positive keywords, nor does it contrast with ad_groups_add_ad_group_negative_keywords or ad_groups_set_keyword_status. Only the schema's keyword-level note about tight themes provides implicit usage context, but not explicit selection criteria.

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