affiliate_connexity_generate_tracking_link

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does add some context by saying it returns a TrackingLink and advising to confirm the programmeId first, but it does not mention authentication requirements, side effects, rate limits, or error conditions. For a mutation-like tool this is a modest but not comprehensive disclosure.

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 core action, followed by usage context and a return/workflow note. No redundant or filler content; every sentence contributes useful information.

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 the tool has only two string parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it states the purpose, when to use it, the return type, and a prerequisite. It could enrich the return type description or mention error handling, but for this small scope the missing details are not critical.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It names both parameters implicitly ('given programme and destination URL') and gives extra guidance for programmeId by recommending confirmation with list_programmes. While it doesn't provide formats or examples, it clarifies the intended meaning of both inputs, adding value 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 opens with a specific action ('Generate a tracking link on Connexity') and names the key inputs (programme and destination URL), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also distinguishes this Connexity-specific tool from the many sibling network-specific generate_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?

Explicitly states 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 concrete workflow hint ('pair with list_programmes to confirm the programmeId before calling'). This gives clear context and a pointer to the companion tool, covering the main usage guidance needs.

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