Add Google Ads negative keywords

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-idempotent, but the description adds little behavioral context beyond that. It does not disclose whether keywords are appended or replaced, how duplicates are handled, what effects occur at the campaign level, or what the response contains.

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 clear sentence with no wasted wordsholistically. It fronts the key scoping detail ('campaign-level') immediately, but it is too terse to carry the full semantic burden expected for this mutation tool.

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 operation with no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits expected side effects, duplicate handling, optional parameter semantics, and any indication of what a successful result looks like. The presence of annotations helps on safety, but not on operational completeness.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for all parameters. It indirectly clarifies campaign_id and keywords by mentioning 'campaign-level negative keywords', but it completely omits customer_id, leaving its purpose unexplained.

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 states a specific verb ('Add'), resource ('negative keywords'), and scope ('campaign-level'), making the operation unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool google_ads_add_keywords by explicitly saying 'negative'.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as google_ads_add_keywords, google_ads_remove_keywords, or google_ads_set_keyword_status. The agent is left to infer the appropriate selection from the tool name alone.

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