add_negative_keywords

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

The description adds meaningful behavior beyond the annotations: it is selective/autonomous, only adds approved terms, and reports rather than adds non-clearing terms. It does not contradict readOnlyHint=false or destructiveHint=false, though it could say more about dry_run behavior.

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?

Two short sentences front-load the purpose and then add the key autonomy condition. Every sentence earns its place and no filler is present.

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?

The description is adequate for the core use case and the output schema covers return values, but it leaves gaps around dry_run, match_type semantics, and how 'reported' terms are returned. These gaps matter because the schema carries no field descriptions.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it does not explain most parameters (dry_run, run_id, rationale, match_type). It only implies that terms are negative keywords and campaign_id is the campaign target, which is insufficient for a 7-parameter tool.

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 first phrase 'Add campaign-level negative keywords' names a specific verb and resource and immediately distinguishes it from the sibling add_shared_negative_keywords. The rest of the description adds the policy-threshold condition without blurring the core purpose.

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?

It communicates when autonomous operation is appropriate: terms whose own search-term data clears the policy threshold with no conversions. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, so it stops short of a 5, but the context is clear and actionable.

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