affiliate_clickbank_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 of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the return type ('Returns a TrackingLink') and suggests a validation step for the programmeId. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, error conditions, or whether the operation has side effects like link persistence or quota usage.

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, front-loaded with the primary action and resource. Every sentence contributes: purpose, usage context, return type, and prerequisite. There is no fluff or redundancy.

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, the description is fairly complete: it provides the use case, return type, and a prerequisite validation step. It lacks some details about URL format or auth verification, but the sibling verify_auth and list_programmes tools help fill those gaps.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It names both parameters ('programme' and 'destination URL') and adds useful guidance that programmeId should be confirmed via list_programmes. However, it does not provide formats, examples, or constraints for destinationUrl, leaving gaps that the bare schema cannot fill.

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 resource ('on ClickBank'), and the required inputs ('programme and destination URL'). It also distinguishes this tool from siblings by naming the ClickBank network and specifying the exact scenario for sharing an affiliate link.

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 on a merchant they have joined.' It also gives a concrete prerequisite by pairing with list_programmes to confirm programmeId. It does not mention explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is clear.

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