affiliate_hotmart_generate_tracking_link

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return type (TrackingLink) but does not disclose side effects, failure modes, authentication requirements, or whether the link is permanent or revocable. This is a significant gap for a creation-like operation.

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, each adding value: the action, when to use, and a prerequisite pairing tip. No filler or redundancy. The description is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 the main purpose and usage context, and gives a relevant pairing hint. However, it lacks information about error handling, response structure beyond the mention of TrackingLink, and authorization prerequisites, leaving the agent under-informed for edge 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It indicates the two parameters are 'programme' and 'destination URL', and suggests programmeId comes from list_programmes, but it does not specify required URL formats, allowed values, or any validation rules. The added meaning is minimal beyond the parameter names.

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 clearly states the tool generates a Hotmart tracking link given a programme and destination URL. The verb 'Generate' and resource 'tracking link on Hotmart' are specific, and it is distinguishable from sibling generate_tracking_link tools via the network name.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool: when the user wants to share an affiliate link to a product/page on a merchant they joined. It also advises pairing with list_programmes to confirm the programmeId, which is a concrete usage instruction. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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