apply_negative_keyword_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden, and it excels. It discloses idempotence ('Running it twice does nothing'), the reuse behavior of existing lists, the notion of a preview phase, and that only missing keywords/links are added. These are non-obvious traits an agent needs to know for safe invocation.

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 well-structured with a clear summary first, then usage guidance, idempotence note, and an Args block. Each sentence adds value—no filler. The length is justified by the tool's complexity (two-phase, multiple parameters) and it is front-loaded with the most critical information.

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 6 parameters and two-phase behavior, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, when to use vs alternatives, idempotence, preview/confirm flow, and parameter semantics. The output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. There are no obvious gaps for an agent to select and invoke 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 0% (context signals), so the description is the sole source of parameter meaning. It provides an 'Args' section explaining every parameter, including match_type guidance ('PHRASE is the usual choice') and confirm_token semantics ('Omit for a preview'). This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 'Create or extend a SHARED negative keyword list', which is a specific verb-resource pair and clarifies the scope (shared list). It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool add_negative_keywords by stating when to prefer this tool, 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 gives explicit guidance: 'Prefer this over add_negative_keywords whenever the same exclusions apply to several campaigns' and explains why (one edit updates all). It also covers the two-phase preview/confirm workflow, giving the agent clear context for when to invoke this tool and how to approach it.

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