modify_keywords

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the dual read/write behavior and mentions 'update writes explicit keyword list,' implying mutation. However, it doesn't cover important behavioral aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, side effects, or what happens to existing keywords not in the new list. The description adds some context but leaves gaps for a mutation tool.

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 clear sections: purpose statement, usage guidelines, and payload details. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. The information is front-loaded with the core purpose first.

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 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is moderately complete. It covers the tool's dual read/write nature and explains some parameters, but misses 'product_slug' and 'client_id' semantics. For a mutation tool with no annotations, it should provide more behavioral context about permissions, side effects, or error conditions.

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. It explains 'keywords' as a list of strings and details 'search_params' with sort options, time filters, and per_keyword_limit. However, it doesn't explain 'product_slug' or 'client_id' parameters at all. The description adds valuable semantics for 2 of 4 parameters, partially compensating for the schema gap.

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's purpose: 'Read or update keyword targeting with optional search parameters.' It specifies both read and write operations on keyword targeting, which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'configure_targeting' or 'submit_agent_targeting', which appear related.

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 'How to use' section provides clear guidance: call without 'keywords' to inspect current config, or with 'keywords' to update. This gives explicit when-to-use instructions for read vs. write modes. However, it doesn't mention when to use this tool versus sibling targeting tools or any prerequisites beyond the required 'product_slug' parameter.

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