add_keyword

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well by revealing the crucial dry-run behavior: 'Dry run unless confirm=True'. This prevents accidental mutations and is important context. It also clarifies match_type allowed values, though it doesn't mention other potential side effects like duplicate handling.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value: match_type enumeration and dry-run behavior. No wasted words.

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 simple tool without output schema or annotations, the description covers the essential behavioral context (dry run, match_type) and is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly. Minor gaps like return format or post-condition are not critical for the core operation.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains match_type (allowed values) and confirm (default dry-run), but leaves text, ad_group_id, and customer_id to inference from names. These are fairly self-explanatory, but for full compensation, more explicit parameter details would be better.

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 states the exact action (add a keyword) and the target resource (an ad group), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_keyword_status or list_keywords. The verb+resource structure is 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 'use this when you need to add a keyword to an ad group' but does not explicitly compare with alternatives like update_keyword_status or provide exclusions. It lacks when/when-not guidance, though the tool's purpose is reasonably inferable.

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