affiliate_adcell_generate_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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the core action and return type (TrackingLink), but omits authentication requirements, failure modes, side effects, or rate limits. The mention of confirming programmeId hints at a prerequisite but does not reveal underlying 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?

Three concise, front-loaded sentences: the primary action first, then usage context, then return type and prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 description covers the main purpose, usage context, and return type, and gives a practical prerequisite. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it leaves gaps around authentication, URL formatting, and error cases, making it adequate but not fully complete for a two-parameter 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It restates the parameter names ('programme and destination URL') but adds minimal semantic detail. The advice to pair with list_programmes gives some value for programmeId, but there is no format, constraint, or example for either parameter.

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 generates an Adcell tracking link for a given programme and destination URL, with a specific use case ('when the user wants to share an affiliate link to a specific product or page'). It distinguishes from sibling generate_tracking_link tools by naming the Adcell network and the exact resource.

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 usage context ('when the user wants to share an affiliate link') and recommends pairing with list_programmes to confirm the programmeId before calling. This gives clear when-to-use guidance, though it does not explicitly exclude alternative network tools (but network-specific naming covers that).

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