update_keywords

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the MICROS unit for bids and the dry-run mechanism via 'confirm'. However, it does not mention destructive nature, permissions, rate limits, or side effects beyond the update 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 reasonably concise and structured with bullet points for clarity. However, it includes redundant formatting like 'Args:' and could be more streamlined.

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 or annotations, the description covers the core mutation behavior and parameter details. However, it omits return value information (e.g., success status or updated objects) and does not address potential side effects or error conditions.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds substantial meaning: it lists the expected fields (Id, Keyword, Bid, ContextBid, UserParam1, UserParam2) and their types/roles. It misses clarifying that additional properties are allowed (schema 'additionalProperties: true'), but otherwise compensates well.

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 'Update keyword text or bids,' specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'add_keywords', 'delete_keywords', and 'set_keyword_bids' by focusing on updating existing keywords. The scope is explicit.

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 how to use the tool, including the 'confirm' parameter for dry-run planning. However, it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'set_keyword_bids' or specify prerequisites or exclusions.

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