affiliate_adtraction_generate_tracking_link

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool returns a TrackingLink and implies link creation, but it does not clarify whether this is a state-changing operation, whether authentication is required, or what happens on invalid input. The prerequisite to verify programmeId is useful but not comprehensive.

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 three sentences with no filler. It front-loads the purpose, then adds usage context, return type, and a pairing recommendation. Every sentence contributes meaningful information.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, what it returns, and a prerequisite. It could include error handling or auth details, but given the tool's simplicity, it is largely complete. The sibling context is addressed by the explicit Adtraction reference.

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 schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It explains 'programme' and 'destination URL', indicating that programmeId is the merchant and destinationUrl is the product/page URL. It also references 'a specific product or page on a merchant' in the usage sentence, adding meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 'Generate a tracking link on Adtraction for a given programme and destination URL', which gives a specific verb, resource, and network. It distinguishes this from sibling generate_tracking_link tools for other networks by explicitly naming Adtraction, and further describes the output as a TrackingLink.

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?

It provides explicit usage context: 'Use this when the user wants to share an affiliate link to a specific product or page on a merchant they have joined.' It also advises pairing with list_programmes to confirm the programmeId before calling, which serves as a practical prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool versus other network-specific tools, though the Adtraction branding makes this implicit.

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