Управление общими минус-фразами

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description only restates the create/change/delete operations and adds no extra behavioral context such as irreversibility, overwrite semantics, authorization requirements, or side effects.

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 single sentence is efficient and front-loads the three supported actions. It wastes no words, though it is too terse to provide any action-specific structure.

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 multi-action mutation with no output schema, the annotations cover destructive behavior and the schema covers parameters and conditional requirements. The description is minimally adequate but omits action-dependent workflow context and return expectations, leaving some gaps for the agent to infer.

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 100%, and the schema already documents the action enum, conditional required fields, ID constraints, and overwrite behavior. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the structured schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 concrete actions (create, modify, delete) and the resource (account-level shared negative keyword sets). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as list_negative_keyword_shared_sets or link_negative_keyword_sets.

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 gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The action enum in the schema indicates supported operations, but the description does not explain when this tool should be chosen over the list or link siblings.

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