apply_negatives_from_waste

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently explains the two modes (dry_run returns a plan; dry_run=False applies changes) and instructs to confirm with the user, indicating a mutating operation. It does not disclose potential side effects like impact on existing negatives or scope across campaigns, but the key behavioral traits are covered.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and efficiently adds the critical dry_run workflow. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or irrelevant details.

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 has 6 parameters and no annotations, but an output schema exists. The description covers the main workflow and the most important parameter (dry_run), but leaves out semantics for the other five parameters. While the output schema may document return values, the missing parameter guidance makes the tool less complete for an agent to use correctly.

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. Only dry_run is explained (plan vs apply). Other parameters like limit, lookback, min_spend, account_id, and match_type are not described at all. This leaves a significant gap in understanding the tool's configuration, especially since the schema provides only names/types/defaults.

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 tool's action: 'Find wasted search terms (spend with no conversions) and add them as campaign negative keywords.' This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like find_wasted_spend (which likely only identifies waste) and add_negative_keywords (which requires manual input). The dual-mode behavior (plan vs apply) is also explicitly mentioned.

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 provides clear context on how to use the tool: 'dry_run=True (default) returns the plan only; set dry_run=False to actually apply. Confirm with the user before applying.' This gives explicit guidance on safe usage and the dry_run workflow. However, it does not mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, though the purpose is self-evident from the description and sibling names.

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