post_tracking_link

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose two useful traits: it is a write operation, and its output URL 'attributes future applications to this source', which explains its downstream effect. However, it omits permission requirements, whether a link can be regenerated or duplicated, and any uniqueness/idempotency behavior.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and its scope, with zero filler. The downstream effect is stated in a single tight clause.

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 explained, and the write nature plus attribution effect are covered. For a mutation tool with zero annotations, though, the description leaves permission/auth and edge-case behavior unaddressed, which is a moderate gap rather than a full one.

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 job_id (with a pointer to retrieve_ingestion_jobs), source, and the optional referrer. The description adds no syntax, format, or default information beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 ('Create'), resource ('tracking link'), and scope ('for source attribution on a job'), so the agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It does not explicitly name the read-side sibling (get_tracking_link) to differentiate this create from that retrieve, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. The 'Write operation' line hints that this is the mutating counterpart to get_tracking_link, but that routing is left entirely to inference rather than stated.

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