Draft detaching a shared set

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

The description transparently discloses that the operation only returns a preview and does not directly modify data, aligning with the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). It also notes that the shared set itself remains unchanged, providing full visibility into 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 concise and well-structured: it opens with the core action, then explains the preview nature, provides usage tips, parameter details, and execution instruction. No redundant or ambiguous phrasing; every sentence serves a purpose.

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 description covers the full workflow: how to inspect before acting, what the operation returns (preview), and how to apply the changes (confirm_and_apply). Given the output schema and the presence of a confirm step, this is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly without additional context.

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 description explains the two required parameters: 'shared_set_id' is identified as a numeric ID from 'get_negative_keyword_lists', and 'campaign_ids' is described as a list of numeric campaign IDs to detach from. This gives clear meaning beyond the raw schema, even though 'customer_id' is not explicitly defined (it is optional with default).

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 ('Detach a shared set from one or more campaigns') with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'attach_shared_set_to_campaigns' and other operations, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance: it instructs to use 'get_negative_keyword_list_campaigns' to inspect attachments before detaching, and explains the two-step process (returns a preview, then call 'confirm_and_apply' to execute). This clearly tells the agent when and how to use the tool relative to alternatives.

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