add_keywords

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether keywords are appended or replaced, whether existing keywords are checked for duplicates, default matchType behavior, or any permission requirements. The description adds no behavioral information beyond the name.

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, focused sentence with no filler. It is appropriately concise for a simple operation and front-loads the core action.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits what happens on success/failure, whether the operation is atomic across multiple keywords, and any preconditions (e.g., ad group must exist). The schema covers parameter names but not behavioral context. This is insufficient for an agent to fully anticipate tool behavior.

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 100%, so parameters are documented. However, the parameter descriptions ('Keywords to add', 'Ad group ID', 'Google Ads customer ID') are minimal labels that restate the schema names. The description adds no extra semantics like default values, relationship between cpcBidMicros and matchType, or array limits. Baseline 3 applies due to full schema coverage.

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 'Add keywords to an ad group' clearly states the action (add), the resource (keywords), and the target (ad group). It effectively distinguishes from sibling add_negative_keywords by implying positive keywords, and from get_keywords which is a read operation.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_negative_keywords or when to avoid it. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the name and sibling list.

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