affiliate_leaddyno_generate_tracking_link

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It states the output ('Returns a TrackingLink') and hints at a precondition (confirm programmeId via list_programmes), which gives some behavioral context. However, it does not disclose whether the operation has side effects on LeadDyno, requires specific auth, or is idempotent, so it is only minimally transparent.

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 sentences and front-loaded: action, usage context, return value plus workflow hint. Every sentence adds value without padding.

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?

Despite no annotations and no output schema, the description omits the required 'brand' parameter and provides only a minimal return type ('TrackingLink') without structure. The workflow hint mitigates but does not fill the gaps, making the description insufficient for reliable invocation.

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 explain parameters. It implicitly covers programmeId and destinationUrl ('given programme and destination URL') and advises confirming programmeId with list_programmes, but it never mentions the required 'brand' parameter, leaving its semantics entirely unexplained.

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 uses a specific verb 'Generate' with resource 'tracking link' on 'LeadDyno', clearly distinguishing it from sibling generate_tracking_link tools for other networks. It also specifies the inputs ('programme and destination URL') and the user intent ('share an affiliate link to a specific product or page on a merchant they have joined').

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 explicit when-to-use context: 'when the user wants to share an affiliate link to a specific product or page on a merchant they have joined.' It also instructs to 'pair with list_programmes to confirm the programmeId before calling,' giving a workflow prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it's not a 5.

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