negative_keyword_update_preview

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds almost no behavioral context beyond saying "Preview"; it does not explain what the preview validates, what it returns, or whether applying changes is a separate 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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Its brevity is appropriate for a tool whose schema and annotations carry the detailed structured information.

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?

The tool has four required parameters, a nested payload, rich annotations, and an output schema, which reduces what the description must explain. However, the description still leaves unclear what previewing actually does and when an agent should choose preview versus another sibling tool.

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 all four required parameters, including the nested payload and its status enum. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that structured documentation, which is acceptable at baseline 3 when the schema is complete.

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 and resource: "Preview" plus "a negative keyword update." It is distinguishable from siblings such as negative_keyword_create_preview and negative_keyword_delete_preview, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from them or explain what preview means in this workflow.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites such as needing an existing negative keyword ID. The preview/apply workflow is only implied by the name and description.

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