affiliate_commission-factory_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 full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does mention that it returns a TrackingLink and hints that programmeId should be verified beforehand, but it does not disclose authentication requirements, failure modes, or whether this is a pure generation operation with no side effects. This is a notable gap for a tool with no annotation safety hints.

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 that are front-loaded with the core action, then provide usage timing, return type, and a pairing instruction. Every sentence earns its place, with no repetition 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 simple two-string-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential dimensions: what it does, when to use it, what it returns, and a critical prerequisite. It could be more complete by noting authentication prerequisites or error behavior, but it is adequate for selection and basic invocation.

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 input schema only defines two string fields with no descriptions, and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It successfully maps 'programme' to programmeId and 'destination URL' to destinationUrl, and adds the insight that programmeId should be confirmed via list_programmes before calling. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema.

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 the specific verb 'Generate' with a clear resource ('tracking link on Commission Factory') and names the two inputs ('programme and destination URL'). It distinguishes itself from sibling generate_tracking_link tools by explicitly naming the network, Commission Factory.

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 provides clear usage context: '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 advises pairing with list_programmes to confirm the programmeId, which is a helpful prerequisite. It does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives for other networks, but the Commission Factory scoping is implicit.

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