Plan: add Google Ads negative keywords

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

Adds real operational context beyond annotations: the request is atomic, Google dry-runs it first, negatives can only suppress delivery (no spend risk), and rollback is manual. Annotations already cover read-only/non-destructive status, so the remaining gap (what the plan artifact looks like, how it is later applied) is minor.

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?

Three tight sentences with the action and targets front-loaded; the parenthetical restating the 1-50 limit and match types duplicates the schema slightly but is compact. No filler or hedging.

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?

Covers target selection, limits, atomicity, the dry-run behavior, risk profile, and rollback for a six-parameter mutation-planning tool with no output schema. It does not describe the plan output/next step, which is the only notable omission.

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 100%, so the schema already documents keywords, match_type, client_id, customer_id, campaign_id, and shared_set_id. The description echoes the keyword count, match types, and target selector but adds only the campaign-vs-shared-set exclusivity nuance, which the schema also hints at.

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?

States a specific verb (add), resource (negative keywords), and scope (to a campaign or a shared negative keyword list) in one atomic request. It is immediately distinguishable from siblings such as gads_plan_pause_entities or gads_plan_create_campaign without opening any schema.

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?

Clearly explains the two targeting modes (campaign_id or shared_set_id) and signals that this is a Google-side dry-run plan whose rollback is manual removal in the interface. It stops short of naming the execution step (applying the plan, e.g. via gads_apply) or quantifying when to prefer this over other gads_plan_* tools.

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