create_sb_negative_targets

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

The description notes 'Preview or create' and 'guarded write', implying two behaviors and safety measures, but does not detail what happens on create or how preview differs. Annotations are absent, so the description carries the burden but fails to fully disclose behavior.

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 that efficiently convey purpose and modality. No redundant or extraneous content.

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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description should offer more guidance on when to use preview vs create and the expected format of 'changes'. As a stub, it partially fulfills but leaves gaps for an agent.

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 parameter descriptions exist. However, the description adds meaning for 'dry_run' as an alias and 'changes' as 'high-level desired changes', which provides context beyond the schema.

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 'Preview or create Sponsored Brands negative targets,' giving a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'archive_sb_negative_targets' and 'create_sb_targets' by focusing on negative targets and includes context of 'hosted endpoint' and 'introspection stub'.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions it is a 'hosted endpoint only' stub but does not compare to sibling tools like 'create_sb_targets' or 'archive_sb_negative_targets'.

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