direct_set_keyword_states

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It explicitly labels the operation as WRITE and mentions the allow_write guard and project scoping, which adds some transparency about authorization. However, it omits details about return values, reversibility, or the effect of dry_run, leaving notable gaps.

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 short sentences that front-load the action and key requirement. There is no fluff, and every word adds value, making it highly efficient.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse for a mutating tool. It does not explain the dry_run parameter's role, the response format, or potential side effects, leaving agents without critical operational context.

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 description coverage is only 40%, with project and allow_write described in the schema. The description repeats the allow_write=true requirement but adds no meaning for keyword_ids, action, or dry_run, which remain undocumented in both schema and description. It fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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 suspends or resumes keywords by ID, with the 'WRITE:' prefix indicating a mutating operation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like direct_suspend_campaigns (campaigns) and direct_set_keyword_bids (bids), leaving no ambiguity about the resource and action.

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 specifies that a write operation requires allow_write=true and project scope, giving a clear precondition for invocation. It does not name alternative tools, but the WRITE prefix and the focus on keyword state changes imply when to use this tool over related ones.

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