create_affiliate_link

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description bears full responsibility. It discloses that the tool creates a referral link, places a cookie, redirects, and requires an active affiliate account and write scope. The explicit disclaimer 'NO money movement' helps set expectations. It does not mention error handling or return values, but for a simple creation tool, this is adequate.

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 concise at four sentences. Each sentence adds unique value: the main action, scope requirement, clarification about money movement, prerequisite, and parameter explanation. No extraneous words; front-loaded with the primary verb.

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 single-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential: what it does, prerequisites, scope, and parameter details. It could optionally mention the return value (the generated link), but this is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity and the overall clarity.

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 input schema already covers the destination parameter with full description, min/max length. The description adds a redundant explanation but essentially repeats the schema. With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3; no significant added value beyond confirming it must be an absolute http(s) URL.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Mint a signed affiliate referral link that redirects to a destination of your choice after placing the affiliate cookie.' This is a specific verb-resource pair. It also distinguishes from siblings by noting that affiliate activate and withdraw are not exposed, making this the sole affiliate creation action.

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 explicit context: 'Requires scope account:write' and 'The affiliate account must already be active.' It also clarifies 'Plain write — NO money movement,' indicating this tool is not for financial transactions. While it doesn't name alternatives, the sibling list includes get_affiliate for reading, so the usage boundaries are reasonably clear.

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