google_ads_negative_keywords_remove

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses destructive behavior, immediate serving cycle impact, increased unwanted traffic risk, and reversibility. This gives the agent a complete understanding of consequences.

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?

Three terse sentences, each adding essential information: purpose, return value, destructive warning, reversibility, and limitation. No wasted words; front-loaded with key action.

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 tool's simplicity, no output schema, and complete schema coverage, the description covers all necessary context: purpose, side effects, reversibility, and scope limitations. An agent can safely decide to invoke it.

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?

All three parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description adds minimal extra semantic meaning, mainly restating the schema's descriptions. Baseline score 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 clearly states the tool removes a single campaign-level negative keyword and returns the criterion_id. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying the scope (campaign-level) and noting the absence of an explicit ad group-level remove tool.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (campaign-level negatives) and when not (ad group-level), providing an alternative (UI or raise issue). Also mentions reversibility via rollback_apply.

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