update_keyword_state

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'guarded write' and 'preview', but does not clarify the side effects of a write, required permissions, or what happens in preview mode. The note about being a stub is transparent about local functionality but insufficient for the actual hosted endpoint.

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 a single sentence plus a brief note, all essential information. It front-loads the action and category, with no redundancy. It could include a tiny bit more usage context, but overall it's efficient.

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 and no output schema or annotations, the description lacks details on return values, error behavior, or the effect of different parameter combinations. It does not leverage sibling tool context to guide selection.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal context ('Preview or set') that aligns with the 'preview' and 'changes' parameters, but does not elaborate on parameter relationships or constraints beyond what the schema already provides.

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 action ('Preview or set keyword state') and the resource ('keyword state'), and the prefix '[Ads / guarded write]' immediately classifies it. It distinguishes from siblings like 'update_campaign_state' or 'archive_keywords' by specifying the resource is keyword state.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'create_keywords' or 'update_campaign_state'). It mentions it's a stub for local use, but does not indicate when preview vs. set should be chosen or any prerequisites.

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