add_negative_keywords

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: level specificity (campaign vs ad group), mutual exclusivity of IDs, and the dry_run validation feature. It also mentions return values. Missing details like destructive potential or permissions, but adequate for a low-risk mutation tool.

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 concisely front-loaded with purpose, followed by structured Args, Note, and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. Efficiently communicates all necessary information.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, mutual exclusivity constraint) and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It explains parameters, constraints, behavior, and expected return, leaving no significant gaps for the agent to operate correctly.

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 must explain parameters. It does so comprehensively: keywords (list), customer_id (optional), campaign_id and ad_group_id with mutual exclusivity note, match_type with options, and dry_run behavior. Adds significant meaning beyond the schema's titles and defaults.

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 'Add negative keywords to block irrelevant searches,' providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tool 'add_keywords' by specifying 'negative' keywords, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explains when to use the tool (to block irrelevant searches) and provides clear context on choosing between campaign-level and ad group-level exclusions. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with alternatives like 'add_keywords', but the context is sufficient for correct usage.

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