affiliate_coupang-partners_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. It discloses the return type (TrackingLink) and warns to confirm programmeId before calling, which implies a failure mode for unverified IDs. It does not mention side effects or auth, but for a link generator this is reasonable context, and it does not contradict any annotations.

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, all informative: purpose, usage scenario, and return/prerequisite. No fluff or repetition. Key information is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what the tool does, when to use it, what it returns, and a key prerequisite. It lacks details on error handling or output structure, but the pairing advice and mention of 'merchant they have joined' give enough context for an agent to invoke it correctly in most cases.

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%, so the description must compensate. It maps 'programme' to programmeId and 'destination URL' to destinationUrl, and tells the agent to obtain programmeId via list_programmes. However, it does not explain URL format, type constraints beyond string, or examples, leaving some ambiguity.

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 says 'Generate a tracking link on Coupang Partners for a given programme and destination URL' – a specific verb, resource, and network. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling generate_tracking_link tools for other networks by naming Coupang Partners, and states the return type 'TrackingLink'.

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: '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 programmeId, which is a clear prerequisite and points to a complementary tool.

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