add_keywords

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that bids are in micros, explains keyword syntax, and mentions the dry-run mode. It does not cover rate limits, auth, or error handling, but the core behavioral traits are well documented.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose, argument breakdown, and money note. While comprehensive, it is not overly verbose; every sentence serves a purpose. Slightly long due to necessary detail, but not wasteful.

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 no output schema, the description lacks information on return values, success indicators, or error handling. While parameter details are thorough, the omission of output behavior makes it incomplete for a full understanding.

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%, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly explains each field within the keyword objects, including required fields, syntax rules, and the critical unit micros for bids, adding immense value beyond the schema.

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 keywords to ad groups' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'add_negative_keywords' and 'update_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 explains the dry-run behavior via the confirm parameter and details keyword syntax options. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_negative_keywords or update_keywords, leaving some ambiguity.

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