affiliate_optimise-media_generate_tracking_link

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses the return type ('Returns a TrackingLink') and a prerequisite (confirm programmeId via list_programmes), but it does not mention side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error behavior. The word 'Generate' implies creation, but it lacks detail on whether persistent state is affected.

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 two sentences with no waste. The primary action is front-loaded, followed by usage context and a pairing hint. Every sentence contributes essential information.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what the tool does, when to use it, what it returns, and a key prerequisite. It is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool, but it could be more complete by noting potential errors or authentication needs.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must add meaning. It loosely describes parameters as 'programme and destination URL' and specifically instructs to use list_programmes to confirm programmeId. This adds value beyond the bare parameter names, but it leaves the URL format and ID format underspecified.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Generate a tracking link on Optimise Media for a given programme and destination URL.' It clearly identifies the network (Optimise Media), distinguishing it from the many sibling generate_tracking_link tools for other networks (e.g., affiliate_awin_generate_tracking_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?

It provides clear usage 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 references a specific workflow: 'pair with list_programmes to confirm the programmeId before calling,' which guides preparation. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives.

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