affiliate_daisycon_generate_tracking_link

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose side effects and behavior. It only adds 'Returns a TrackingLink' and a prerequisite, but fails to mention auth requirements, whether generation is idempotent, or any error/edge-case behavior. This is a significant gap for a mutation-like tool.

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?

Three sentences with zero fluff: action/inputs, usage trigger, and return value with prerequisite. Each sentence contributes meaning, making it well-structured and appropriately sized.

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 low-complexity tool with two string parameters, the description covers purpose, when to use it, return type, and a prerequisite (list_programmes). It lacks details like auth/validation rules, but the essential selection/invocation info is present. The absence of an output schema is partially offset by the 'Returns a TrackingLink' note.

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 has 0% parameter description coverage, so the description must compensate. It maps the two parameters conceptually: 'programme and destination URL' correspond to programmeId and destinationUrl. However, it provides no format, example values, or constraints, only basic semantic mapping.

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 states it 'Generate a tracking link on Daisycon for a given programme and destination URL' – a specific verb, resource, and network. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling generate_tracking_link tools for other networks.

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 explicit when-to-use criteria: 'when the user wants to share an affiliate link to a specific product or page on a merchant they have joined.' It also recommends pairing with list_programmes to confirm the programmeId, though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or alternatives.

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