direct_add_keywords

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

The description discloses that this is a write operation ('WRITE:') and that it does not auto-enable AT, a useful negative behavior. It also highlights the 'allow_write=true' flag as a safety mechanism. However, it does not describe return values or error 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?

The description is extremely concise, using compact notation and front-loading the 'WRITE:' label. Every clause adds information: the action, the structure, the bid unit, and the write guard.

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 or output schema, the description covers the core behavior and keyword format but omits response format and error behavior. It also doesn't explain the dry_run parameter, which could be relevant for testing.

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?

It clarifies the keywords parameter structure as [{keyword, bid_rub?}] and notes bid is in micros, adding meaning beyond the schema. The schema only describes project and allow_write, so this fills a gap. It does not explain dry_run or adgroup_id, but those are less complex.

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 'add keywords to ad group' with specific verb and resource, and the 'WRITE:' prefix signals mutation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like direct_set_keyword_bids or direct_update_keywords.

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 for adding keywords but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-to-use vs other keyword tools. It does note the 'allow_write=true' requirement, which is a necessary guard for mutation.

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