Draft negative keywords

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

Annotations flag readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description usefully clarifies that this is a non-mutating draft returning a plan_id that only takes effect after confirm_and_apply. That resolves the ambiguity of a write-flagged tool that does not actually change anything.

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?

Front-loads the action and the PREVIEW caveat in the first sentence, which is the most decision-relevant information. The explanatory sentence about what negative keywords do is somewhat generic filler but does not derail the structure.

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?

With an output schema present the description need not explain return values, yet it still names the plan_id handoff to confirm_and_apply. The preview-then-confirm workflow is fully described; only the routing versus sibling draft tools is left implicit.

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 100%, so all four parameters (keywords, match_type, campaign_id, customer_id) are already documented with types and defaults. The description adds only the campaign-level placement context and nothing about keyword syntax or match_type semantics, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Draft negative keyword additions') and immediately scopes it as a preview. The phrase 'added at campaign level' distinguishes it from the list-based siblings like add_to_negative_keyword_list, though it never names them explicitly.

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 two-step workflow ('nothing changes until confirm_and_apply applies it') gives implied usage, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over add_to_negative_keyword_list or propose_negative_keyword_list, nor any when-not condition.

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