google_ads_add_negative_keywords

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the schema contains a 'confirm' boolean defaulting to false, implying a two-step confirmation gate — but the description never mentions confirmation, reversibility, or that keywords persist until removed. For a destructive mutation, the description adds essentially nothing beyond the annotations.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; nothing is wasted. Its brevity is appropriate in form, though it leaves the substantive gaps flagged in other dimensions.

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?

This is a destructive, open-world mutation with 6 parameters, an undocumented confirm gate, and 0% schema description coverage. An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but the description is not complete enough for an agent to invoke this safely and correctly.

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 0% across 6 parameters. The description only gestures at 'keywords' and the campaign-level scope; it says nothing about match_type semantics (enum, default PHRASE), the confirm flag, or login_customer_id for MCC access, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource ('Add campaign-level negative keywords'), and the 'campaign-level' qualifier distinguishes it from ad-group-level negative keyword work. It does not name any sibling tool, but the scope is precise enough for an agent to tell what it does.

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 parenthetical 'e.g. wasteful search terms found in a search-term report' implies the workflow that triggers this tool, which is useful context. However, there is no guidance on when not to use it, when to prefer ad-group-level negatives, or how to choose between this and a query/mutation sibling.

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