affiliate_howl_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 of behavioral disclosure. It does add useful context—'Returns a TrackingLink' and the recommendation to confirm programmeId via list_programmes—but it does not disclose whether the operation has side effects, requires authentication (e.g., via verify_auth), or how errors are handled, leaving some gaps.

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 concise sentences covering what it does, when to use it, and its return value plus a key prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or repetition.

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?

As there is no output schema, the description appropriately mentions the return type ('Returns a TrackingLink'). It covers the core action, use case, and a necessary pairing with list_programmes. However, it omits authentication steps (e.g., verify_auth) and error behavior, which are minor gaps for a simple two-parameter tool.

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?

The input schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It references 'a given programme and destination URL', and specifically instructs to confirm programmeId with list_programmes, adding some meaning beyond the bare parameter names. However, it does not provide format constraints or detailed semantics for destinationUrl.

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 'Generate a tracking link on Howl for a given programme and destination URL', specifying the exact action, platform (Howl), and inputs. It distinguishes itself from sibling generate_tracking_link tools by naming the network and the two key parameters, and also explains the use case for sharing an affiliate link.

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 explicitly says 'Use this when the user wants to share an affiliate link to a specific product or page on a merchant they have joined' and advises pairing with list_programmes to confirm the programmeId. This gives clear when-to-use context and a prerequisite, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use cases.

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