update_ad_account_negative_keywords

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it handles the key destructive aspect: this is a full replace, not an append, so callers must provide the entire desired list. It also explains the domain purpose (blocking unwanted contexts for ad eligibility). It could add impact details such as irreversibility or immediate propagation, but the core mutation behavior is transparent.

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 tight sentences, with the critical replace-not-append warning front-loaded and no filler. Every sentence adds decision-relevant 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 two-parameter mutation with a well-described schema and no output schema, the description gives enough for an agent to use it correctly: what it operates on, the replace semantics, and when to use it. It could mention side effects explicitly, but nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 describes both parameters well: ad_account_id is an override and negative_keywords is the full list to set, with empty array clearing. The description mostly restates the 'full desired list' constraint, adding no new param-level detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Replace'), names the exact resource ('account-level negative keywords'), and ties it to ad eligibility. It also explicitly distinguishes the behavior from appending ('this is a replace, not append'), which differentiates it from sibling update/add tools.

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 a clear usage context ('Use to block unwanted contexts') and the replacement semantics an agent must understand before calling. It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the sibling list contains no similar negative-keyword tool, so the guidance is sufficient.

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