update_keyword_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly mentions the dry-run behavior ('Dry run unless confirm=True'), which is a critical safety feature, and indicates the source of criterion_id. It does not detail reversibility of 'REMOVED' or permission requirements, but the dry-run note adds significant transparency.

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 two sentences, highly concise, and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every phrase adds value: the status values, the source of criterion_id, and the dry-run behavior. No redundant information.

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 status-update tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what the tool does, how to identify the keyword, and the safety mechanism. It could elaborate on the implications of 'REMOVED' but is otherwise sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 0% description coverage, but the tool description compensates by explaining the meaning of key parameters: criterion_id is 'the keyword's criterion id (from list_keywords)', status values are enumerated, and confirm controls dry-run vs actual execution. Customer_id and ad_group_id are not explained, but the description adds substantial value for the most critical parameters.

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 function: 'Set a keyword's status' with specific allowed values ('ENABLED', 'PAUSED', or 'REMOVED'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_campaign_status or update_ad_group_status, as it targets keywords specifically.

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 provides context on when to use the tool: it is for updating keyword status, and it specifies how to obtain the required criterion_id ('from list_keywords'). While it does not explicitly exclude alternatives, the scope is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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