add_keywords

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions the dry_run parameter for validation but does not discuss side effects, authorization requirements, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure beyond the return 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?

The description uses a clear Args/Returns structure but includes parameter descriptions that could be redundant given the schema. It could be slightly more concise without losing clarity.

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?

For a tool with 5 parameters and an output schema, the description covers all parameters and hints at the return value. However, the output schema is not detailed in the description, but the return mentions success status and count. Overall sufficient for the tool's complexity.

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 0%, so the description compensates by explaining each parameter's purpose, including match_type values and dry_run behavior. However, it could be more detailed about the format of keywords (e.g., case sensitivity) and customer_id optionality.

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 tool's purpose: 'Add keywords to an ad group.' The parameters further clarify the action, and the sibling tools include 'add_negative_keywords', which distinguishes this tool as adding positive keywords.

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 implies usage context (adding keywords to an ad group) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add_negative_keywords' or other ad group operations. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions.

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