update_sb_negative_target_state

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

Annotations are absent, so description must convey behavior. 'Guarded write' and 'preview or set' hint at mutation with safety, but no details on side effects, permissions, or idempotency. Stub note explains local behavior but not actual runtime 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?

Two sentences, no redundancy. Critical info front-loaded. Each sentence serves a distinct purpose: tool function and deployment context.

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?

Missing output schema and no annotations, so description must compensate. It does not explain return values, failure modes, or how 'changes' parameter works. Stub note is helpful but insufficient for full understanding of a mutation tool.

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. Description adds no new param-specific info beyond schema explanations. It does not elaborate on the 'changes' array structure or preview/dry_run semantics.

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 it can preview or set Sponsored Brands negative target state, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning 'negative target' but could be more explicit about contrast with update_sb_target_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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like update_sb_target_state. The 'guarded write' hint is present but not expanded. Lacks context of prerequisites or exclusions.

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