direct_update_keywords

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It labels the operation as 'WRITE' and mentions allow_write=true, but does not disclose the dry-run behavior, potential side effects, or required permissions. The schema description for allow_write explains dry plan, but that is not in the tool description and the description itself does not elaborate on safety or mutation consequences.

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 and front-loaded with the action and resource. It uses code-like notation that is efficient, though the 'allow_write=true' hint is somewhat redundant with the schema. Overall, it avoids fluff and communicates the core purpose quickly.

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 far too minimal. It does not explain return values, error behavior, the role of dry_run, or how the operation fits into the broader workflow. For a write tool with 4 parameters, this lacks essential context for an agent to use it correctly and safely.

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 provides a compact item structure with optional markers, which partially compensates for the 50% schema coverage. However, it does not explain the meaning of user_param1/2 or strategy_priority beyond their names. The schema already defines types and enums, so the description adds marginal value by showing the intended array structure but lacks semantic depth.

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 opens with 'WRITE: keywords.update' which clearly identifies the action and resource. It specifies the exact fields to update (user_param, strategy_priority) and distinguishes from the sibling tool for autotargeting. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 explicitly states 'For AT use set_autotargeting', which is a direct alternative for a different resource. While it doesn't enumerate all sibling tools for keyword updates, the narrow purpose (user_param/strategy_priority) implies when to use it. More explicit exclusions would improve, but the AT note provides concrete guidance.

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