affiliate_partnerize_generate_tracking_link

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries some burden. It adds useful context that programmeId should be confirmed via list_programmes and states the return type ('Returns a TrackingLink'). However, it does not disclose auth requirements, error behavior on invalid inputs, or whether the operation is read-only vs. state-changing, so behavioral transparency is partial.

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, front-loads the action and resource, and includes no fluff. Every sentence contributes either purpose, usage context, or a practical preparation step.

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 generation tool, the description covers the action, the use case, and the key prerequisite (validating programmeId). It does not describe error scenarios or output structure, but with no output schema and straightforward parameters, the provided context is reasonably complete.

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. The description names the two parameters ('programme and destination URL'), but only adds meaningful semantics for programmeId (via the list_programmes pairing hint). It does not provide additional details for destinationUrl beyond its name, leaving the parameter definitions minimally enriched.

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'), names the resource ('a tracking link on Partnerize'), and specifies the inputs ('programme and destination URL'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools for other networks by naming Partnerize, and the phrase 'merchant they have joined' implies publisher-side, differentiating from the advertiser variant.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'when the user wants to share an affiliate link to a specific product or page on a merchant they have joined.' It also gives an actionable prerequisite: 'pair with list_programmes to confirm the programmeId before calling.' However, it does not explicitly mention the advertiser-side generate_tracking_link as an alternative, so it lacks an explicit when-not or exclusion.

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