google_ads_negative_keywords_add_to_ad_group

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

No annotations were provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is mutating, not automatically reversible, and advises recording prior state for rollback. It also mentions the return value. This is strong for a mutation tool, though it omits specifics like required permissions or error handling.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds unique value (scope, return, rollback, preference). No filler or redundancy.

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 simple add operation with no output schema, the description covers essential context: scope, return value, mutation warning, and rollback guidance. It lacks nothing critical for an agent to decide and invoke the tool correctly.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no new parameter-level details beyond what is already in the schema, but that is acceptable since the schema is fully self-explanatory.

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 action: 'Adds one or more ad group-level negative keywords.' It distinguishes from campaign-level negatives and references the sibling tool by name, making the resource and scope 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?

Provides explicit decision guidance: 'Prefer this over google_ads_negative_keywords_add when the exclusion is only wrong in one ad group's context.' Also states the scope is narrower than campaign-level negatives, helping with tool selection.

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