direct_set_negatives

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the write nature and required allow_write flag, but lacks detail on reversibility, dry-run behavior (though schema covers this), or side effects beyond mutation.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The 'WRITE:' prefix immediately categorizes the operation, and every phrase contributes (mode, phrase formatting, allow_write). It is efficient though slightly terse.

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 7-parameter write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain how to specify target campaigns (campaign_id vs campaign_ids), the purpose of dry_run, or the project parameter, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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 description adds useful meaning for 'phrases' (formatted as Direct expects, avoid bare '+') and 'allow_write' (must be true for mutation), which schema does not fully provide. However, it leaves campaign_id, campaign_ids, and project unexplained, and schema coverage is low (29%).

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 identifies this as a write operation for campaign-level negative keywords, with the 'WRITE:' prefix distinguishing it from read tools and the 'campaign' qualifier differentiating it from group-level alternatives. It is specific but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like direct_set_group_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?

The description implies usage through the 'WRITE' prefix and mode=merge|replace, but it offers no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives or exclusions. It gives operational hints (allow_write=true) but not selection criteria.

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