affiliate_cj_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 burden. It discloses the return type ('Returns a TrackingLink') and hints at a prerequisite (confirm programmeId), but it does not mention authentication requirements, failure modes, or whether the operation has side effects. This is partial 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: the first states the core function, the second provides usage context, and the third gives return type and a prerequisite. It is front-loaded, without unnecessary words.

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 tool with two parameters and no annotations, the description covers the action, use case, return value, and a helpful prerequisite. It lacks only minor details like auth requirements and specific URL requirements, but is otherwise complete for decision-making.

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 there are no parameter descriptions, so the description must compensate. It names both parameters ('programme' and 'destination URL') and suggests how to obtain a valid programmeId, but it does not explain URL format constraints or provide any additional syntax details. This is adequate but not thorough.

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 a tracking link'), the platform ('CJ Affiliate'), and the inputs ('programme and destination URL'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools by naming the specific network and the 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?

It explicitly says 'Use this when the user wants to share an affiliate link to a specific product or page on a merchant they have joined', providing a clear scenario. It also advises pairing with list_programmes to confirm the programmeId, acting as a workflow guideline. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use.

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