add_negatives_to_shared_list

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

Although no annotations are provided, the description discloses a critical side effect: adding to a shared list affects every campaign the list is attached to. It also clarifies that match_type is limited to 'Exact' or 'Phrase'. It does not cover other behavioral aspects like duplicate handling or permissions, but given the tool's simplicity, the key behavior is conveyed.

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 sentences with no filler. Each sentence serves a distinct purpose: stating the action, giving usage preference, and defining a parameter constraint.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters, no annotations, and no schema descriptions, the description does a good job with purpose and usage but omits parameter semantics for most inputs. The output schema may cover return values, but the description still leaves room for ambiguity about what list_id and texts refer to in practice.

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 schema has no descriptions for any parameters (0% coverage). The description only clarifies match_type values, leaving account_id, list_id, and texts without additional meaning. Most parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the lack of explicit semantics for three of four parameters means the description fails to compensate for the absent schema descriptions.

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'), the object ('negative keywords'), and the target ('shared list'), and explicitly notes the effect on every attached campaign. This distinguishes it from sibling add_negative_keywords which operates per-campaign.

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?

It explicitly states 'Prefer this over per-campaign negatives when an account uses a shared negatives list,' which provides a clear decision rule and names the alternative. This is exactly the kind of guidance needed.

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