negative_keyword_create_preview

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the word 'Preview' is consistent with that, so there is no contradiction. However, the description adds no context beyond the annotations: it does not explain what the preview emits, that no state is changed, or how the preview ties to the apply step.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently minimal — the same length could have carried the preview-then-apply contract or a sibling pointer.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but for a nested-payload write-preview tool with two possible parent scopes the description leaves the agent guessing about targeting requirements and the follow-up apply step.

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 all three top-level params are documented, so the schema carries the load. The description only implies the payload contains a single keyword and gives no hint about the campaignId vs adGroupId targeting choice inside the nested payload.

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+resource ('Preview creation of one negative keyword') and the word 'one' implicitly separates it from the bulk sibling negative_keywords_bulk_create_preview. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as negative_keyword_update_preview or negative_keywords_query, so differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus negative_keywords_bulk_create_preview (many keywords) or negative_keyword_update_preview (existing keyword). Nothing says the preview must be followed by operations_apply to actually create the keyword, which is the key workflow decision for this tool family.

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