add_negative_keywords

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations: it specifies that negative keywords 'block unwanted search terms,' clarifying the tool's effect. The annotations provide destructiveHint=true, indicating mutation, but the description usefully explains what gets modified (adding blocking terms). No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part ('Add negative keywords to block unwanted search terms') directly contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 tool's moderate complexity (mutation with 3 parameters, destructiveHint annotation, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the action and effect but lacks details on outcomes (e.g., confirmation of addition), error conditions, or integration with sibling tools, leaving gaps for the agent.

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 100% schema description coverage, the input schema fully documents all parameters (campaign_id, keywords, level). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying keywords are for blocking, which is already covered by the tool's purpose. This 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 negative keywords') and the resource ('to block unwanted search terms'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'add_keywords' or 'update_campaign_budget', which might also involve keyword management or campaign modifications.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing campaign), exclusions (e.g., not for positive keywords), or direct comparisons to siblings like 'add_keywords' or campaign-related tools, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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