add_negative_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 discloses that this is an add operation and returns new negative keyword IDs, but it doesn't discuss behavior on duplicates, permission requirements, or whether the change is reversible. This is partial 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?

The description is three short sentences that front-load the purpose, then add key parameter guidance and return value. No redundant text.

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 tool is simple with 4 params and an output schema. The description covers the main purpose, match_type semantics, and return value. It doesn't mention error cases or prerequisites, but for this low-complexity tool, it's largely 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It specifies allowed match_type values ('Exact' or 'Phrase') and clarifies the campaign-level scope, but doesn't add meaning to account_id or the texts array beyond their names.

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 ('Add') and resource ('campaign-level negative keywords'), with a clear goal ('stop ads showing for those terms'). It distinguishes from siblings like add_keywords and add_negatives_to_shared_list by specifying campaign-level scope.

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 clearly indicates the tool is for adding negative keywords at the campaign level, which is a clear use case. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives like shared negative lists or when not to use it, so it has clear context but no exclusions.

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