add_negative_keywords

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It states the operation ('add negative keywords') but discloses no side effects, idempotency, required permissions, or potential conflicts with existing negative keywords. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose without any filler. It is concise and well-structured, earning a high score for efficiency.

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?

The tool is simple with three well-described parameters and no output schema. The description covers the essential action and target. While it lacks details like whether the operation replaces existing negatives or requires specific permissions, for a straightforward add operation it is nearly complete.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with each parameter (keywords, adGroupId, customerId) clearly described. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the operation name, but the schema already explains the parameters sufficiently, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 negative keywords to an ad group' uses a specific verb ('add') and clearly identifies the resource ('negative keywords') and target ('ad group'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'add_keywords' by the word 'negative', making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies the use case (adding exclusions to an ad group) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add_keywords' or 'get_keywords'. There is no mention of prerequisites or when not to use it, leaving usage guidance implied rather than explicit.

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