Add Negative Keyword

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It never says whether the operation is destructive, whether keywords are deduplicated or error on conflict, what 'confirm_token' does or whether confirmation is required, or whether additions are reversible. Only the one-line statement that keywords block searches is disclosed.

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?

A single short sentence with the core action front-loaded and no filler, so it is efficient. However, that brevity comes at the cost of substance rather than being tight-but-complete — it is under-specified, not optimally concise.

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 five-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the description is far too thin; the confirm_token safety flow is the most critical omission. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but operational behavior and parameter meaning are missing.

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 description coverage is 0% across five parameters, so the description should compensate and does not. 'Several ... keywords' loosely implies 'texts' is a list and 'campaign-level' hints at 'campaign_id', but 'match_type' (default BROAD), 'customer_id', and especially 'confirm_token' are left completely unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Add several campaign-level negative keywords') plus the intent ('blocking unwanted searches'), which makes the operation immediately identifiable. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings, but among names like create_keyword and set_keyword_status the negative-keyword scope is distinctive enough.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g. customer/campaign must exist, auth needs), and no note about when not to use it. The agent must infer the entire usage context from the tool name.

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