create_negative_keywords

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool is a 'guarded write' with preview capability and crucially states it's a local stub that only works as a hosted endpoint. This prevents misuse but omits details like required permissions or post-write effects.

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 exceptionally concise, covering key points in a single sentence with a parenthetical qualifier. It front-loads the category '[Ads / guarded write]' for quick scanning, though it lacks structured formatting like bullet points.

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 no output schema, requiring the description to explain return values, which it does not. It also fails to clarify the relationship between preview and dry_run parameters or how changes should be structured. The stub note is helpful but insufficient for full usability.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning to parameters beyond what the schema already provides. The parameter names and descriptions are self-explanatory, and the tool name gives domain context.

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 identifies the tool as handling negative keywords with verbs 'preview' and 'add'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying the resource type (negative keywords vs negative targets) and notes it's an introspection stub, which sets clear expectations.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like archive_sp_negative_keywords or create_sp_negative_targets. It lacks when-not-to-use directives and does not reference sibling tools for comparison.

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