affiliate_linkconnector_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 burden. It discloses the return type ('Returns a TrackingLink') and a workflow caveat, but it does not explicitly state whether the operation is side-effect-free or what authentication requirements exist. This is acceptable but leaves some ambiguity about the operation's safety profile.

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: purpose, usage context, and return/workflow note. No filler or repetition. Front-loads the core action and keeps supporting details compact.

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 tool with two simple parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, input semantics, expected return, and a prerequisite step. It fully prepares the agent to invoke the tool correctly and even signals how to avoid a common mistake (calling with an unconfirmed programmeId).

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description must compensate. It maps both parameters to their roles: 'programme' and 'destination URL', and adds semantic guidance for programmeId by recommending confirmation via list_programmes. It gives enough context to understand the purpose of each parameter, though it lacks explicit formats or validation details.

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 ('Generate') and resource ('tracking link on LinkConnector'), then names the two inputs (programme, destination URL). It clearly distinguishes this tool from the many other network-specific generate_tracking_link siblings by explicitly naming LinkConnector.

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 states when to use it ('when the user wants to share an affiliate link to a specific product or page on a merchant they have joined') and provides a concrete prerequisite/pairing instruction ('pair with list_programmes to confirm the programmeId before calling'). This gives strong guidance for selection and preparation.

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