add_keywords

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, indicating this is a write operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this—it doesn't specify whether keywords are appended or replaced, if there are rate limits, or what permissions are required. However, it doesn't contradict the annotations, so it earns a baseline score for adding some operational clarity.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 destructiveHint annotation and lack of output schema, the description is minimally adequate but leaves gaps. It doesn't explain the outcome (e.g., success/failure response, error handling) or operational constraints. For a destructive tool with no output schema, more context would be helpful, but the schema coverage and annotations provide some foundation.

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%, with all parameters well-documented in the schema itself (e.g., ad_group_id, keywords, match_type with enum and default). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 the action ('Add keywords') and target ('to a Google Ads campaign or ad group'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'add_negative_keywords', which likely serves a similar but opposite purpose (adding negative 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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, constraints, or when to choose this over other campaign/ad group management tools like 'update_campaign_budget' or 'create_search_campaign'. The agent must infer usage from context alone.

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