affiliate_post-affiliate-pro_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 the return type ('Returns a TrackingLink') and hints at the need for a valid programmeId by advising to confirm it via list_programmes. However, it does not mention side effects, error handling, authentication requirements, or behavior on invalid input, so transparency is only 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?

Three concise sentences, each with a distinct purpose: what it does, when to use it, and what it returns plus a prerequisite. No redundant or filler language, making it easy to parse.

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 description covers the core purpose, usage scenario, return type, and a prerequisite, but the missing explanation for 'brand' is a significant gap, especially since all parameters are required and there is no output schema. Without knowing what 'brand' represents, an agent may not be able to invoke the tool correctly. Overall, it 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 compensate. It adds meaning for programmeId (confirm via list_programmes) and destinationUrl (explicitly called 'destination URL'), but the required 'brand' parameter is not explained at all, leaving an important parameter ambiguous.

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 action ('Generate'), the resource ('a tracking link on Post Affiliate Pro'), and the key parameters ('given programme and destination URL'). It distinguishes itself from sibling generate_tracking_link tools by naming the specific platform, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool ('when the user wants to share an affiliate link to a specific product or page on a merchant they have joined') and recommends pairing with list_programmes to confirm the programmeId. However, it does not mention when not to use it or provide alternatives, leaving a small gap for full guidance.

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