affiliate_partnerstack-advertiser_generate_tracking_link

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the return type ('Returns a TrackingLink') and hints that programmeId should be validated via list_programmes. Yet it omits potential side effects, authentication requirements, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 just two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and includes practical guidance (when to use, pairing with list_programmes) without any redundancy. Every word earns its place, making it highly 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?

For a simple three-parameter tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the core action, typical use case, and a key prerequisite. However, the missing explanation of 'brand' and the minimal detail on the returned TrackingLink prevent it from being fully complete. It is close but not perfect.

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. It explains the roles of 'programme' and 'destination URL' (mapping to programmeId and destinationUrl), but it completely fails to mention the required 'brand' parameter. It also provides no format or constraint details for destinationUrl, so parameter semantics are only partially covered.

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 purpose: 'Generate a tracking link on PartnerStack (advertiser) for a given programme and destination URL.' It includes a specific verb, resource, and inputs, and the '(advertiser)' qualifier distinguishes it from non-advertiser sibling tools like affiliate_partnerstack_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?

The description provides an explicit use case: '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 advises pairing with list_programmes to confirm the programmeId, which is helpful workflow guidance. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion criteria, so it stops short of a 5.

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