ads_add_keywords

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully explains the confirm flag's dry-run behavior ('must be true to apply, else dry-run'), which is valuable safety context. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as duplicate handling, idempotency, permission needs, or effects on existing keywords.

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-loaded with the main purpose, and followed by a terse bullet-style argument list. Every line contributes meaning, with defaults and safety behavior included without unnecessary prose.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers the key call semantics, parameter meanings, and dry-run behavior. An output schema exists, so return-value details are not required. Mild gaps remain around explicit prerequisites and constraints, but the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke this tool correctly in most cases.

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 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It does: every parameter is explained with domain meaning, including customer_id as a 10-digit account id, match_type enum values with a default, cpc_bid as optional per-keyword max CPC, and confirm as the dry-run gate. This adds real semantic value far beyond the raw schema.

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 states a clear, specific action: 'Add positive keywords to an ad group.' It identifies the resource and operation, and distinguishes the tool from its close sibling ads_add_negative_keywords by explicitly scoping to positive keywords. The name and description align without ambiguity.

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 does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ads_add_negative_keywords or other ad-group mutation tools. The positive-keyword phrasing weakly implies usage context, but there is no guidance about when not to use it or which sibling to prefer in a given scenario.

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