google_ads_negative_keywords_remove

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It candidly discloses the destructive nature ('exclusion is lifted immediately'), impacts ('unwanted traffic'), and irreversibility ('not automatically reversible'). This exceeds typical levels of disclosure.

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 lean, front-loads the core action and return, and each sentence delivers unique value (purpose, effect, warning, alternative). No extraneous content.

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 tool with 3 parameters, no output schema, and a straightforward mutation, the description covers purpose, behavior, and precautions. It mentions the return value. Minor gap: does not specify if the operation can fail or indicate error handling, but overall sufficient.

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 parameter descriptions in the schema are already clear. The tool description adds no additional semantic nuance beyond what the schema provides, aligning with baseline 3.

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 explicitly states the tool removes a single campaign-level negative keyword and returns the removed criterion_id. It also distinguishes from ad group-level negatives by noting the absence of a dedicated remove tool for that scope, making the purpose 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 clear when-to-use guidance (removing campaign-level negatives) and when-not-to-use (ad group-level negatives currently require UI). It advises recording before-state with mureo_state_action_log_append for potential rollback, offering both situational context and an alternative.

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