create_sd_negative_targets

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is a 'guarded write' and that it can preview or create, and notes it is a stub (local introspection). However, it lacks details on side effects, auth specifics, rate limits, or failure modes, which are important for a write tool.

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 two sentences, concise and front-loaded with the category and action. However, the second sentence about the stub nature could be more integrated or clearer about its implication.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should cover return behavior, required permissions beyond 'guarded write', and the expected structure of the 'changes' parameter (array of objects). It fails to do so, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use the tool 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 schema already describes all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what is in the parameter descriptions, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 specifies the resource ('Sponsored Display negative targets') and the actions ('Preview or create'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like archive_sd_negative_targets and update_sd_negative_target_state. The category '[Ads / guarded write]' further contextualizes the tool.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use preview vs. create, or when to use this tool vs. archive_sd_negative_targets). The stub note is meta-context, not usage direction.

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