propose_negative_keyword_list

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

Annotations suggest it's a non-read, non-destructive write. The description details that it only creates a draft/preview and requires a separate confirm step, adding crucial behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 compact, front-loads the purpose, and includes necessary details without extraneous information. Every sentence adds value.

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 moderate complexity (5 parameters, output schema exists), the description sufficiently covers the draft-then-confirm workflow, distinguishes from similar tools, and explains the return value (preview). No critical gaps are present.

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?

Only match_type is explicitly documented with its enum values ('EXACT', 'PHRASE', 'BROAD'). Other parameters (campaign_id, list_name, keywords, customer_id) are not described in the description, though their names and context partly compensate. With 0% schema coverage, more description would be beneficial.

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 drafts a shared negative keyword list and attaches it to a campaign, returning a preview. This verb-resource-action combination distinguishes it from siblings like add_negative_keywords.

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?

Explicitly contrasts with add_negative_keywords ('unlike add_negative_keywords...') and directs to use confirm_and_apply for execution, providing clear when-to-use and workflow guidance.

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