create_link

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

Annotations already declare this is a write (readOnlyHint=false) and potentially destructive, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the two-phase preview/confirm safeguard and the token dependency. It stops short of saying what confirm actually finalizes or whether the link can be revoked, which matters for a tool flagged destructiveHint=true.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the purpose front-loaded and the operational protocol immediately after. Every clause earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should say more about what the preview returns and what state results after confirm. It covers the core write protocol adequately but leaves the 'code' parameter and post-confirm outcome undocumented for a 6-parameter mutation 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 coverage is only 33%, and the description explains the confirm/confirmToken pairing — but both of those already carry schema descriptions. The bare 'code' parameter (presumably a custom slug) is never explained in either place, and programId/partnerId/destinationUrl rely on name inference alone.

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 tracked link') plus its scope ('for a partner in a program'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like create_partner and create_coupon. An agent can identify the right tool without opening the schema.

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 second sentence gives a concrete call protocol: first call previews and returns a confirmToken, second call with confirm:true executes. That is actionable guidance for how to use the tool, though it never states prerequisites (e.g., whether partner/program must already exist) or when-not-to-use it.

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