archive_keywords

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It reveals it is a 'guarded write' and a local introspection stub, but fails to disclose side effects, required permissions, or behavior of preview vs archive. The stub note adds some transparency but is insufficient.

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 concise—two short sentences covering purpose and a key caveat. It is front-loaded with the type indicator in brackets. However, the dual action (preview/archive) could be structured more clearly.

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?

The tool has 5 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description does not explain how parameters like preview, dry_run, and changes interact, nor does it specify the target ad platform. The stub note warns of non-functionality but doesn't help an agent use it 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 coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to explain parameters. It adds no extra meaning beyond 'preview or archive,' which indirectly relates to preview/dry_run parameters, but this is not explicit. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states it is for 'Preview or archive keywords,' which is a specific verb-resource combination. It differentiates from sibling archive tools targeting other entities (e.g., campaigns, ad groups) but lacks specification of keyword type, causing minor ambiguity.

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 like archive_sp_negative_keywords or create_keywords. It does not explain the condition for preview vs archive or prerequisites.

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