google_ads_negative_keywords_add

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is mutating, reversible via rollback_apply, and returns created criterion_ids. However, it could mention prerequisites (e.g., campaign existence) or rate limits, but the information given is sufficient for safe use.

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 very concise, using only three sentences to convey purpose, scope, return value, mutagenicity, alternative usage, and a caution. No fluff, 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 moderate complexity of the tool (3 params, no output schema), the description covers key aspects: action, scope, return, and sibling alternative. It could mention validation or limits, but the provided context is adequate for selection and invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minor guidance (e.g., 'EXACT is the safest for narrow exclusions') but mostly rephrases schema info. It does not significantly enhance understanding beyond what the schema already provides.

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 that the tool adds campaign-level negative keywords, specifies they apply to every ad group, and explicitly distinguishes the sibling tool for ad-group-level negatives. The purpose is specific and 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 on when to use this tool versus the alternative (google_ads_negative_keywords_add_to_ad_group) and warns about over-blocking risk, making it easy for the agent to choose correctly.

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