affiliate_afilio_generate_tracking_link

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that a TrackingLink is returned and hints at a prerequisite (confirming programmeId), but it doesn't mention potential side effects (e.g., whether it creates a persistent link), auth requirements, or error behavior. This is a gap for a tool that 'generates' something.

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 sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence states the core function, the second provides the trigger context, and the third gives a practical prerequisite tip. Information is front-loaded and each sentence 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?

Given a simple 2-parameter schema with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essentials: what it does, when to use it, what it returns, and a key prerequisite. It doesn't discuss error cases or auth, but for such a simple tool the description is reasonably complete.

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% and the schema only lists type 'string' for both parameters. The description adds semantic meaning by stating these are 'programme' and 'destination URL', and clarifies the destination URL is for 'a specific product or page'. However, it doesn't explain URL formats, programmeId format, or how to obtain/validate them beyond the pairing hint. This partially compensates but isn't complete.

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 uses a specific verb ('Generate') and clearly identifies the resource ('tracking link on Afilio') and the key inputs ('programme and destination URL'). It distinguishes this tool from the many sibling generate_tracking_link tools by naming the network (Afilio) and the exact use case.

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 explicitly states when to use it ('when the user wants to share an affiliate link to a specific product or page') and provides a clear workflow hint ('pair with list_programmes to confirm the programmeId'). It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it, but the context is clear enough.

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