Draft negative keywords

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by explicitly stating that the operation returns a PREVIEW and that execution requires a separate confirm_and_apply call. This discloses the non-destructive, two-phase behavior, providing transparency about the tool's side effects.

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 succinct and well-structured. It delivers the key action, the preview nature, and the next step in a compact, scannable format without any redundant information.

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?

For a simple drafting tool, the description covers the necessary workflow: draft, preview, and confirm. It does not detail the output schema or error cases, but the availability of an output schema and the clear link to confirm_and_apply make it sufficiently 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?

The schema has no parameter descriptions, and the description only explains match_type values ('EXACT', 'PHRASE', or 'BROAD'). The meanings of keywords and campaign_id are implied by context but not explicitly defined, so the description only partially compensates for the missing schema coverage.

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 function: drafting negative keyword additions and returning a preview. It also explains the purpose (preventing ads from showing for irrelevant searches) and identifies the resource (negative keywords), making the tool's intent unmistakable.

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 gives a clear follow-up instruction ('Call confirm_and_apply with the returned plan_id to execute') and implies this is a drafting step. However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like propose_negative_keyword_list or add_negative_locations, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this tool over alternatives.

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