Минус-фразы группы

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint true and readOnlyHint false. The description adds key behavioral details: it replaces the entire list and clearing with empty array. This exceeds the annotation's minimal info, providing full transparency 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?

A single, well-structured sentence includes the core action and a parenthetical clarifying key behavior. No extra words, high efficiency.

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 write operation with no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and behavior. It lacks details on return value or errors, but given the simplicity and annotations, it is sufficient for most use cases.

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 100% and already explains both parameters (ad_group_id, negative_keywords with clearing behavior). The tool description does not add new meaning beyond the schema; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states it sets negative keywords at the ad group level, with the behavior of replacing the current list and clearing with an empty array. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_campaign_negative_keywords.

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 implies when to use it (setting ad group negative keywords) and describes the replacement and clearing behavior. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives like set_campaign_negative_keywords, leaving some inference to the agent.

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