affiliate_partnero_generate_tracking_link

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does reveal the return type ('Returns a TrackingLink') and the dependency on confirming programmeId via list_programmes, which is useful. However, it does not mention potential side effects, error conditions, authentication requirements, or whether the link generation is stateless or persists anything. This is moderate transparency but not rich.

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, front-loaded with the purpose, then usage guidance, then return/prerequisite. Every sentence adds useful information without fluff or repetition. It is concise and well-structured.

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?

The tool is simple (three string params, no output schema), and the description covers purpose, return type, and a prerequisite. However, it lacks explanation of the 'brand' parameter and does not describe the TrackingLink structure or any failure modes. For a straightforward tool, this is adequate but not 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 explain all parameters. It does give context for programmeId and destinationUrl (programme and destination URL), and the pairing hint clarifies programmeId. But the 'brand' parameter is never mentioned or explained, leaving a required field ambiguous. This is a clear gap in parameter semantics.

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 clearly states the tool's action ('Generate a tracking link on Partnero') and its key inputs (programme and destination URL). It distinguishes itself from sibling generate_tracking_link tools by explicitly naming Partnero, and the return type is mentioned. This is a specific, unambiguous statement of purpose.

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 gives a clear use case: 'when the user wants to share an affiliate link to a specific product or page on a merchant they have joined.' It also recommends pairing with list_programmes to confirm the programmeId, which is practical guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives for other networks, so it stops short of a full when/when-not breakdown.

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