google_ads_negative_keywords_add

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility and delivers: it discloses the operation is 'Mutating — not automatically reversible,' advises recording before-state with mureo_state_action_log_append, and states the return behavior ('Returns created criterion_ids'). It also explains the broad impact across ad groups, which is important behavioral context.

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 three dense sentences that front-load the purpose, then cover scope, return value, mutability/rollback, and the key alternative tool. Every sentence adds necessary information without padding or repetition.

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 mutating tool with no output schema, the description provides a complete picture: what it does, scope, return value, rollback guidance, and a named alternative. Combined with the full schema coverage, the agent has sufficient context to select and invoke the tool appropriately.

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% and the schema already contains detailed descriptions for all parameters, including match type semantics and customer_id fallback. The description reinforces campaign_id scope but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Adds one or more campaign-level negative keywords' and clarifies scope with 'These apply to every ad group in the campaign.' It clearly distinguishes from the sibling tool by naming google_ads_negative_keywords_add_to_ad_group, making the tool's purpose and boundary explicit.

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 when-to-use context: campaign-level negatives for all ad groups, and explicitly directs users to google_ads_negative_keywords_add_to_ad_group for ad-group-level negatives. It even warns about the risk of over-blocking, giving clear guidance on when not to use this tool.

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