Update keywords

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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries the bulk of the behavioral burden. It does not disclose that removal is destructive/irreversible, what state keywords must be in, what permissions or account context are required, or what the call returns; 'remove' in particular deserves a warning.

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 efficient sentence with the action verbs front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized for the stated purpose, though it says nothing a mutation tool of this type arguably needs.

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 destructive mutation tool with no output schema, shallow annotations, and an undefined parameter surface, the description omits too much: it does not explain how to target a campaign or keyword, what happens on removal, or any confirmation behavior. An agent could not reliably invoke this correctly from what is given.

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?

Zero properties are declared and the schema is an open object with additionalProperties=true, so the agent has no structured guidance on how to identify the campaign, keywords, or the action to apply. The description implies an action-plus-keyword-list shape but never specifies identifiers, formats, or whether batch input is expected.

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 specific verbs (add, pause, remove) on a specific resource (keywords) within a named platform surface (Google Search campaign). This distinguishes it reasonably from research_keywords and add_negative_keywords, though it doesn't explicitly name those siblings as alternatives.

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 when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or comparison to adjacent tools such as add_negative_keywords or research_keywords. The agent must infer from the name alone that this mutates existing campaign keywords rather than negative or researched keywords.

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