create_keywords

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It labels the tool as a 'guarded write' and a stub, but lacks details on auth requirements, rate limits, or consequences of actual writes. The behavioral disclosure is minimal.

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?

Two concise sentences: the first states purpose with context, the second clarifies this is a stub. No redundant information. Perfectly front-loaded.

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 has 5 parameters, no output schema, and is a guarded write, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain preview vs add logic, expected changes format, or any return behavior. For a stub, it's adequate but for actual use it's incomplete.

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%, and the description adds value by clarifying that 'preview' and 'dry_run' are aliases and that 'changes' are high-level. This enhances understanding beyond the schema alone.

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 tool can preview or add keywords, and the bracketed '[Ads / guarded write]' provides context. The name aligns with the action, and it's distinguishable from sibling tools like create_negative_keywords. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all similar tools.

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 mentions 'Preview or add keywords' and notes this is a stub, implying limited usage. It does not explicitly state when to use preview vs add, nor provide alternatives or exclusions, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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