affiliate_partnerstack_generate_tracking_link

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a TrackingLink and emphasizes confirming programmeId first, which provides some behavioral context. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, potential errors, side effects, or link format details. It is adequate 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, concise and front-loaded. The first sentence states the action and inputs, the second gives usage context, and the third notes the return type and prerequisite. No redundant wording.

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 only two simple required parameters, the description covers the essential selection criteria, usage scenario, return type, and a key prerequisite. It does not describe error cases or output structure in detail, but given the low complexity, it 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. It references 'programme and destination URL' but only at a high level, mirroring the parameter names without adding format, constraints, or examples. The instruction to confirm programmeId adds a little guidance, but overall the parameters remain 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 clearly states 'Generate a tracking link on PartnerStack for a given programme and destination URL', naming the specific action, platform, and key inputs. It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly naming PartnerStack and referencing affiliate link sharing.

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: '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 provides a practical directive to 'pair with list_programmes to confirm the programmeId before calling.' It lacks explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is clear.

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