Add keywords

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

Annotations already declare it is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive write. The description adds real context beyond them: localize=true triggers an AI translation across every tracked market, and new keywords start with no ranks until run_rank_check. It stays silent on duplicate handling and on what the response contains, which matters for a non-idempotent mutation.

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?

Four compact sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the section enum, then localize, then the rank post-condition. Dense and purposeful, though the nested parentheticals in the section sentence slow a first read slightly.

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 4-parameter write tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers the main behavioral consequences (AI translation side effect, ranks not yet present). Missing only the return payload and duplicate-keyword behavior, which leaves a small gap for an agent deciding how to confirm success.

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 earns above baseline by explaining what each enum value means in domain terms and by spelling out the localize semantics (translate per market vs. same phrase everywhere). Only projectId and the 100-item cap are left to the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Add one or more keywords ... to a project") plus what a keyword is ("search phrases"). The action is unambiguous against siblings like remove_keywords or edit_keyword, though none are named explicitly.

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?

Explains the choice between the two section values ('listing' = current targets, 'idea' = candidates to evaluate) and clarifies the localize default and effect. It also points to the follow-up tool (run_rank_check) needed for ranks, which is useful routing guidance, but it never states when not to use this tool versus suggest_keywords.

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