Google 広告にキーワードを追加

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), the description discloses a genuinely important trait: a keyword created as negative cannot later be converted to a normal keyword, so mistakes require delete-and-recreate. This is real behavioral context the annotations do not carry.

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 tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the core action before the high-risk caveat. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description supplies the key missing behavioral warning (negative-keyword irreversibility). It does not mention auth/customer resolution or return behavior, but the essential risk context is present.

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%, so the schema already documents keywords, negative, match_type, customer_id, and ad_group_resource_name. The description reinforces the negative parameter's meaning and adds the irreversibility caveat, but the schema does the bulk of parameter documentation, matching the baseline 3.

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 states a specific verb+resource: adding keywords to an ad group. It clearly tells an agent what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like google_ads_keywords or google_ads_mutate that could plausibly touch the same resource.

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?

It explains the semantic effect of the negative=true parameter but gives no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance relative to alternatives such as google_ads_mutate or google_ads_keywords. Usage is implied by the parameter note rather than stated as selection criteria.

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