add_keywords

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses the return value ('Returns new keyword ids'), the item structure including match_type, and defaults for bid and status. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond a bare mutation description, though it does not detail edge cases like duplicate handling.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then the concise item structure. No fluff, every word adds value. The structure is exemplary for a tool with a nested array parameter.

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 adequately covers the essential parameters and return behavior, and an output schema exists for return values. The main gap is the absence of guidance on when to use this instead of sibling tools, but for a focused add-keywords tool with clear parameters, the context is sufficient for invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does by fully describing the 'keywords' array item format (text, match_type with allowed values, optional bid, status with default), which is the most complex parameter. The numeric ids (account_id, ad_group_id) are left to schema but their purpose is evident from the tool name and siblings.

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 verb 'Add' and the resource 'keywords to an ad group', making the action specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_negative_keywords by specifying 'keywords' (positive) and 'ad group', so an agent can easily select it.

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 for adding keywords to an ad group but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as 'set_keyword' or 'add_negative_keywords'. There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance beyond the obvious purpose, so the agent must infer the context from siblings.

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