direct_set_group_negatives

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

Without annotations, the description must disclose safety traits. It labels the operation as WRITE and notes mode=merge|replace and the need for allow_write=true, but it omits details about destructive effects, whether replace overwrites all existing negatives, or permissions. This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 compact and front-loads the WRITE flag, which helps triage. However, it is more of a parameter summary than a coherent explanation. Still, no words are wasted.

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 write tool with 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is drastically under-specified. It lacks return value information, side effects, and essential usage context. This is inadequate for a complex mutation tool.

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 coverage is low (29%), with only project and allow_write described. The description adds mode and project hints but fails to explain key parameters like phrases, adgroup_id, adgroup_ids, and dry_run. The differentiation between adgroup_id and adgroup_ids is critical and missing.

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 identifies the operation as 'adgroups.update NegativeKeywords', clearly indicating this tool modifies negative keywords on ad groups. The WRITE: prefix reinforces the mutation intent. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like direct_set_negatives, which may handle campaign-level negatives.

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to choose this tool over siblings. The description is a technical shorthand rather than usage instructions. There is no mention of alternatives or exclusion criteria.

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