remove_negative_keyword

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly highlights the dry-run default (shows preview) and that confirm=True is required to actually execute, which is a critical safety behavior. It doesn't discuss irreversibility or permissions, but the dry-run mitigation adds substantial transparency.

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?

Three short sentences, each carrying essential information. The action is front-loaded, and there is zero filler or repetition. It is a model of concise, structured tool documentation.

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?

The description covers the core action, how to obtain the identifier, the dry-run safeguard, and the execution path. An output schema exists, so return values don't need description. It could mention permission requirements, but for a single-purpose removal tool, it is sufficiently complete.

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 100% with parameter descriptions already present. The description adds value by explaining that resource_name should come from get_search_terms or execute_gaql, and by clarifying the confirm parameter's dry-run vs. execute behavior. This goes beyond the schema alone.

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 uses a specific verb ('Remove') and clearly identifies the resource ('negative keyword') and the method ('by resource name'). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'add_negative_keywords' and gives context on obtaining the resource_name.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on how to get the required resource_name (via get_search_terms or execute_gaql) and explains the dry-run default with confirm=True to execute. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, but the context is clear and actionable.

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