Create a campaign tracking link

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

Annotations already declare the write/open-world/non-destructive profile, and the description adds real value on top: an auth requirement and a detailed disclosure of the return shape, including exactly when tracking_url is null. It stops short of mentioning rate limits, retry behavior, or that the operation creates a persistent server-side resource, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose in the first sentence, then the auth requirement, then the return semantics. The long parenthetical enumerating meta/tiktok/google placement is dense but earns its space by preventing a common misuse; only the nested clause structure costs it a point.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates fully by explaining both returned fields, their distinction, and the null case. Combined with a fully documented 8-parameter schema, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly and interpret the result.

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 100%, so baseline would be 3, but the description adds genuine meaning by clarifying that `url` is only the App Store destination the caller passed — pinning down what destination_url actually represents — and by mapping network values to where the tracking_url belongs in each ad platform.

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 and resource: 'Create a web-to-app tracking link for an ad campaign.' The scope (campaign link, not a general link) is clear enough that an agent can distinguish it from list_links or update_link_status, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Gives a concrete prerequisite ('Requires a write-scoped API key') and a fallback path when the server cannot produce a link ('then create the link in AttriKit, Links'). It does not state exclusions against siblings such as list_links, but the context for when this tool applies is unambiguous.

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