google_ads_negative_keywords_remove

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It warns that the action is destructive ('exclusion is lifted immediately on the next serving cycle, which can increase unwanted traffic'), notes it is 'not automatically reversible', and suggests a rollback strategy via mureo_state_action_log_append. It also states the return value (criterion_id). This is exemplary transparency for a mutating tool.

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, each earning its place: purpose, return value, destructive warning, rollback advice, and scope limitation. It is front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds critical information without redundancy. Highly concise and well-structured.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the action, the return value, side effects, reversibility, and an edge case (ad-group-level negatives). There is no ambiguity about what the tool does, what it returns, or what risks are involved, making it fully self-sufficient for an agent.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all three parameters (campaign_id, customer_id, criterion_id). The description does not add new parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3. It does reinforce the campaign-level scope, which slightly aligns with the schema, but no extra semantics are added.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Removes a single campaign-level negative keyword.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like google_ads_keywords_remove or google_ads_negative_keywords_add_to_ad_group by specifying 'campaign-level' and 'negative keyword'. It also states it returns the criterion_id, leaving no doubt about the tool's function.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool (campaign-level negative keyword removal) and provides a when-not with an alternative: 'For ad group-level negatives there is currently no explicit remove tool — use the Google Ads UI or raise an issue if needed.' This tells the agent not to attempt ad-group-level removal with this tool and directs to the appropriate fallback.

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