remove_negative_keywords

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 only says 'Remove', which is the expected operation, but it does not mention permanence, permissions, side effects, or whether removal is destructive in a way that affects campaigns. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It efficiently communicates the action, target, and data source without redundancy.

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 and has an output schema, so return values need no explanation. The description covers the action, scope, and id source, but due to missing annotations, it lacks details on consequences or prerequisites beyond listing. It is adequate but not comprehensive for a destructive operation.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. The phrase 'by id (from list_negative_keywords)' adds crucial meaning: the negative_keyword_ids array should contain ids previously returned by list_negative_keywords. However, it does not elaborate on account_id or campaign_id beyond what their names imply, providing only partial compensation.

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 action ('Remove'), the resource ('campaign-level negative keywords'), and the method ('by id'). It also references the source tool 'list_negative_keywords', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'add_negative_keywords' and clarifies the exact 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 parenthetical '(from list_negative_keywords)' implies the prerequisite workflow: list negative keywords first to obtain ids, then use this tool to remove them. It also specifies 'campaign-level', implicitly excluding shared-list negatives. However, it does not explicitly discuss when not to use or mention alternatives.

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