update_sp_negative_target_state

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

The description labels the tool as '[Ads / guarded write],' indicating it requires certain permissions and may have safeguards. It mentions 'Preview or set' behavior, with preview and dry_run parameters enabling validation. However, it does not disclose the exact effects of setting the state (e.g., immediate vs. queued, reversible vs. irreversible) or detail any destructive implications. The note about being a stub is helpful but incomplete.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences that cover purpose and a critical behavioral note (the stub nature). Every word is necessary, and the structure is front-loaded with the core action and 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?

Given the complexity of the input (an array of objects with additionalProperties: true) and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain how to structure the 'changes' array, what valid state values are, or the implications of setting vs. previewing. The note about being a stub is valuable but does not compensate for the lack of guidance on making effective use of the 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 the baseline is 3. The description elaborates on the preview/dry_run parameters as aliases for validation behavior. It describes the 'changes' parameter as 'High-level desired changes for the hosted guarded write tool,' which adds some context but remains vague. No additional meaning is added for the reason or marketplace_id parameters, which are self-explanatory.

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 tool's purpose: 'Preview or set Sponsored Products negative target state.' It identifies the specific ad type (Sponsored Products) and resource (negative target state), and distinguishes from siblings like update_sb_negative_target_state (for Sponsored Brands) and update_sd_negative_target_state (for Sponsored Display).

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 mentions this is a 'Hosted endpoint only' and an 'introspection stub,' which provides context that it is not a live tool in this environment. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_sp_negative_targets or archive_sp_negative_targets. The usage is implied by the tool's name and type but lacks direct comparison.

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