draft_keywords

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that keywords are created paused, that blocklist (settings-configured blocked_terms) and bid cap (MS_ADS_MAX_CPC) are enforced, and includes a live-verification note. This covers key side effects and constraints, though it doesn't detail error handling or permission requirements.

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-loads the core purpose ('Draft new keywords under an ad group — created Paused'), then details the structure and constraints. The verification line adds some length but is informative. Overall, it is efficient without 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, one open-ended array) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, keyword structure, paused creation, and enforcement rules. It lacks details on error behavior or return values, but these are not critical for basic invocation.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage and the keywords parameter lacks a defined structure (additionalProperties: true). The description compensates fully by specifying the array elements as {text, match_type: Broad|Phrase|Exact, bid: optional float}, providing essential parameter details that the schema omits.

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 'Draft new keywords under an ad group' with the verb 'draft' and resource 'keywords', and specifies they are 'created Paused'. It also lists the array structure (text, match_type, bid) and mentions enforcement of blocklist and bid cap, distinguishing it from other keyword tools like update_keyword_bid or remove_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 gives clear context that this tool is for creating new keywords in a paused state, which implies its use for drafting rather than activating. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like discover_keywords or add_negative_keywords, nor does it provide exclusions. It's clear enough for an agent to infer, but not fully explicit.

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