affiliate_ehub_generate_tracking_link

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add useful context by stating 'Returns a TrackingLink' and implying a validation prerequisite via the list_programmes pairing. Still, it omits any mention of authentication requirements, side effects, rate limits, or failure behavior, leaving important behavioral aspects undocumented.

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 exactly two sentences, with no redundant phrases. The first sentence states the core action, and the second adds use case and prerequisite guidance. Every word earns its place; it is front-loaded and highly readable.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, this description is quite complete: it covers purpose, use case, return type, and a crucial prerequisite. Gaps include a lack of explicit exclusions, no mention of auth verification (despite the sibling affiliate_ehub_verify_auth tool), and no error behavior. Still, it provides enough context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in most scenarios.

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 maps the two parameters to 'programme' and 'destination URL' and recommends confirming the programmeId via list_programmes, which gives practical meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it does not provide formats, constraints, or examples for either parameter, so it only partially compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 'Generate a tracking link on eHUB for a given programme and destination URL,' clearly specifying the action (generate), resource (tracking link on eHUB), and inputs (programme and destination URL). The additional sentence explains the exact user scenario ('share an affiliate link to a specific product or page on a merchant they have joined'), which distinguishes this tool from other generate_tracking_link tools for different networks and from other ehub operations.

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 provides an explicit when-to-use statement: '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 gives a concrete companion-tool recommendation: 'pair with list_programmes to confirm the programmeId before calling.' However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or identify alternative generate_tracking_link tools, so it falls short of full exclusions/alternatives guidance.

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