remove_negative_keywords

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds that deletion is by id, not text, which is a key behavioral detail. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is reversible, what permissions are needed, or any side effects. Given the minimal annotations, the description carries more burden and adds moderate value.

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 consists of two concise sentences with no wasteful words. It front-loads the verb and resource, immediately conveying the tool's purpose.

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 covers the essential flow (resolve ids then remove) and the scope. Given that an output schema exists (context signal true) and annotations are minimal, the description is sufficient for an AI agent to understand the tool's operation. It could mention permanence or permissions, but it is adequate.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions that deletion is by id for keyword_ids and that entity_id corresponds to campaign/ad group id, but the schema already describes these parameters. No additional semantic meaning beyond the schema is provided.

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 verb 'Remove', the resource 'negative keywords', and the scope 'from a campaign or ad group, identified by id'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'add_negative_keywords' and 'get_negative_keywords' by specifying that deletion is by id, not text.

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 explicit guidance: 'Resolve ids first with get_negative_keywords (deletion is by id, not text).' This tells the agent when to use this tool and what prerequisite steps are needed. It could be more explicit about when not to use it (e.g., if you have text instead of ids), but the guidance is clear.

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