add_negative_keywords

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

Annotations indicate non-destructive and non-readonly. The description adds that it returns a PREVIEW and requires confirmation, providing behavioral context beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose details like expiration of drafts or resource consumption.

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?

Three short sentences plus a match_type line, each providing essential information. The purpose is front-loaded with 'returns a PREVIEW', and no unnecessary words. Perfectly concise.

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's complexity (4 params, 2 required) and presence of output schema, the description explains the workflow and purpose well. It ties to sibling tools ('confirm_and_apply'). Minor gaps: no details on plan_id format or error handling, but sufficient for a drafting tool.

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 explains match_type values ('EXACT', 'PHRASE', 'BROAD') and the purpose of negative keywords, but does not describe the format of keywords or the customer_id parameter. The baseline for 0% coverage is 4, but the lack of detail on required parameters (campaign_id, keywords) reduces the score.

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 it drafts negative keyword additions and returns a preview, with a specific verb ('Draft'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'add_to_negative_keyword_list' (direct addition) and 'propose_negative_keyword_list' (proposal), and references the follow-up tool 'confirm_and_apply'.

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 explicitly instructs to call 'confirm_and_apply' with the returned plan_id to execute, establishing a clear two-step workflow. It implies using this tool for preview before application, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives like direct addition.

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