affiliate_impact_generate_tracking_link

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return type ('Returns a TrackingLink') and a prerequisite (confirm programmeId via list_programmes), which is valuable. However, it does not mention authentication needs, failure behavior, or side effects, leaving notable gaps for a tool with no annotation support.

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 earning its place: the action, the use case, and the return/prerequisite guidance. Front-loaded and free of repetition or filler.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: purpose, when to use it, what it returns, and a companion call. It could have mentioned the need for prior auth/verification (sibling verify_auth exists), but overall it is coherent and practical.

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 does: 'programme' maps to programmeId, and 'destination URL' plus 'specific product or page' maps to destinationUrl. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though it stops short of providing formats or examples.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Generate a tracking link on Impact' and names the key inputs (programme and destination URL). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling generate_tracking_link tools by explicitly naming Impact and describing the affiliate-sharing use case.

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?

Provides clear context: '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 companion instruction to pair with list_programmes to confirm the programmeId. It lacks explicit negative guidance about when to use different network tools, so it doesn't earn a 5.

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