affiliate_affise_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 of behavioral disclosure. It does mention 'Returns a TrackingLink' and advises confirming the programmeId, which sets expectations for the output and a precondition. However, it doesn't discuss potential side effects, authorization requirements, or error behavior if the programmeId is invalid, leaving some ambiguity for a generation tool.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action, then adds usage context and a workflow tip, earning its length.

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 purpose, when to use it, the return type, and a prerequisite. It doesn't go into error handling or the exact format of the returned link, but those are less critical for a straightforward generation task. The mention of 'TrackingLink' partially compensates for the missing output schema.

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 names both parameters ('programmeId' and 'destinationUrl') and explains their roles in the first sentence. It also provides guidance for programmeId ('pair with list_programmes to confirm...'). However, it doesn't specify parameter formats (e.g., URL format for destinationUrl) or why both are required, which would be helpful.

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 opens with 'Generate a tracking link on Affise for a given programme and destination URL', which specifies a clear action, resource, and network. It distinguishes this tool from the many sibling generate_tracking_link tools for other networks by explicitly naming Affise.

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 states when to use it: '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 gives a practical workflow hint: 'pair with list_programmes to confirm the programmeId before calling.' However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or alternative tools beyond the implicit network distinction.

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