affiliate_shareasale_generate_tracking_link

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return type ('Returns a TrackingLink') and warns to confirm programmeId, but it does not mention authentication requirements, potential errors, or whether any server-side state changes occur. For a simple link generator, this 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, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds value: action+resource, usage context, return type+workflow tip. No redundant or vague 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 two parameters, no output schema, and low complexity, the description covers the core purpose, usage scenario, return type, and a prerequisite. It omits authentication needs and error behavior, but these are not critical for this action. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 programmeId as the merchant programme and destinationUrl as a specific product/page URL. The hint to use list_programmes helps clarify how to obtain programmeId. However, it does not specify formats or constraints, leaving some ambiguity.

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 a tracking link on ShareASale for a given programme and destination URL.' It identifies the specific network (ShareASale), the verb (generate), and the resource (tracking link). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that generate tracking links 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?

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 workflow hint: 'pair with list_programmes to confirm the programmeId before calling.' It lacks an explicit 'instead' alternative, but the context is clear given the sibling set.

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