Draft a shared negative keyword list

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

Annotations only indicate non-read-only and non-destructive, but the description discloses the two-step nature: returns a preview and requires confirm_and_apply to actually attach. This adds important behavioral context beyond the annotations, though it doesn't specify side effects if the plan is never applied.

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, using three short sentences to convey purpose, usage distinction, and required follow-up action. No unnecessary information or verbose language.

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?

It provides sufficient context for core usage: the preview/confirm flow, distinction from a sibling tool, and match_type options. It does not describe the structure of the preview output or potential error cases, but for a drafting tool, the essential context is covered.

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 0% description coverage for parameters. The description clarifies that match_type accepts EXACT, PHRASE, or BROAD, which is valuable. However, it does not explain the meaning or format of keywords, list_name, campaign_id, or customer_id, leaving some parameters under-specified.

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 primary function: drafting a shared negative keyword list and attaching it to a campaign, returning a preview. It also differentiates from sibling add_negative_keywords by explaining the reuse across multiple campaigns versus single-campaign addition.

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?

It explicitly contrasts with add_negative_keywords and instructs to call confirm_and_apply with the returned plan_id to execute, giving clear when-to-use and follow-up guidance. This leaves no ambiguity about the intended workflow.

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