affiliate_cake_generate_tracking_link

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the return type (TrackingLink) and that it 'generates' a link, but it does not explain side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, reversibility, or what happens with invalid inputs. The guidance to confirm programmeId hints at failure behavior but does not disclose it directly.

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 only two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and includes practical usage and return information. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or filler.

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 tool with two simple string parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential purpose, usage, return type, and a key prerequisite. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly for its primary use case, though it could mention authentication prerequisites or error handling for full completeness.

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 provides only names and types for programmeId and destinationUrl with zero coverage. The description adds some meaning by explaining that programmeId should be confirmed via list_programmes and that destinationUrl should be a product/page URL on the merchant's site. Still, it does not fully compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, such as URL format expectations or potential constraints.

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 action (generate), the resource (tracking link on CAKE), and the key inputs (programme and destination URL). It also explains the use case (sharing an affiliate link to a specific product or page), which distinguishes it from other network-specific tracking link tools.

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 says when to use the tool ('when the user wants to share an affiliate link to a specific product or page on a merchant they have joined') and provides a clear prerequisite ('pair with list_programmes to confirm the programmeId before calling'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternative tools for other networks, so it stops short of a perfect score.

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