add_negative_keywords

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and delivers exceptional transparency: it discloses the duplicate-check behavior, the policy on blocklisted terms, the hard API fault condition for ad_group scope without campaign_id, and even a live-verification note with date and scope. This goes well beyond what a typical description offers.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the purpose and scope first, then key behaviors, and finally a verification note. The verification sentence is useful for trust but arguably optional. Overall it is well-organized and wastes little space, though formatting could be more structured with bullet points.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers all critical operational aspects: accepted scopes, keyword format, duplicate handling, blocklist policy, parent campaign requirement, and verification status. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing, making it highly complete.

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 0%, and the description compensates fully: it explains the scope enum options, the exact keyword object format ({text, match_type: Phrase|Exact}), and the campaign_id requirement for ad_group. The entity_id is not explicitly explained but is inferable as the target ID for the chosen scope. Given the complete schema absence, this is exemplary parameter documentation.

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 the tool drafts negatives and clearly enumerates valid scopes (campaign, ad_group, shared_list) and the keyword structure. It implies the addition operation via the duplicate-check skip and reference to 'negating'. It is distinct from siblings by name and content, though the phrase 'Draft negatives' is slightly informal and could be more explicit that it actively adds.

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 behavioral constraints that guide when to use the tool (e.g., duplicate-check rule, blocklist not applied, campaign_id requirement for ad_group scope) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when to use get/remove instead. Usage context is largely implicit from the name and sibling set rather than explicitly stated.

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