create_sp_negative_targets

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. 'Guarded write' is mentioned but undefined; no information on authentication, side effects, or what 'preview' entails. The local stub status is noted, but behavioral details are missing.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose and context. However, it is too concise, omitting important detail like parameter relationships. Adequate but not optimal.

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?

For a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks explanation of return values, the 'changes' array structure, and why two preview-related booleans exist. Does not fully equip 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% with parameter descriptions, so the description adds minimal extra meaning. It paraphrases 'preview' and 'dry_run' but doesn't clarify their interaction or the structure of 'changes'. Baseline 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?

Description explicitly states 'Preview or create Sponsored Products negative ASIN/brand targets.', specifying the resource and action. The prefix '[Ads / guarded write]' adds context, and the mention of a hosted endpoint distinguishes it from sibling tools dealing with other ad types or operations.

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 direct guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like create_sp_targets or archive_sp_negative_targets. The statement 'Hosted endpoint only; this local stdio server is an introspection stub' hints at usage restrictions but doesn't provide clear usage criteria.

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