affiliate_profitshare_generate_tracking_link

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

The description discloses that a TrackingLink is returned and implies a prerequisite (merchant joined, valid programmeId). However, with no annotations present, it carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention auth requirements, error conditions, or potential side effects, leaving notable gaps for a mutation-like tool.

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 concise sentences, each earning its place: action and inputs, usage context, and return type plus pairing recommendation. It is front-loaded and contains no redundant exposition.

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 two-parameter tool without output schema or annotations, the description covers purpose, when to use, return type, and a prerequisite. It does not specify the structure of the returned TrackingLink or error behavior, but the essential information for calling is present.

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?

The description names both parameters ('programme' and 'destination URL') and explains that programmeId should be confirmed via list_programmes, adding meaning over the bare schema with 0% coverage. It does not provide detailed format constraints (e.g., URL scheme), but for two simple string parameters it adequately clarifies their roles.

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 generates a tracking link on Profitshare for a given programme and destination URL. It uses a specific verb ('Generate') and identifies the resource ('tracking link on Profitshare'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools for other networks.

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?

Explicit usage context is provided: '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 recommends pairing with list_programmes to confirm the programmeId, offering a concrete prerequisite. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it, but the network-specific naming makes alternatives implicit.

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