affiliate_sovrn-commerce_generate_tracking_link

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions 'Returns a TrackingLink' and implies the user must have joined the merchant programme. However, it does not describe authentication requirements, error behavior, or any side effects beyond generating a link. This is partial transparency but not comprehensive.

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 main purpose, then when to use, then return type and a pairing tip. Every sentence adds distinct value and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the simple two-parameter operation, the description covers purpose, usage context, return type, and a prerequisite. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it fails to describe the return structure, potential errors, or authentication assumptions. It is minimally viable but leaves noticeable gaps for an agent to invoke it confidently.

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 schema provides zero description coverage, but the description compensates by referencing 'given programme and destination URL' and explaining the use case ('share an affiliate link to a specific product or page'). This clarifies that programmeId refers to the Sovrn Commerce programme and destinationUrl is the product/page URL. It doesn't give formats or examples, but it is sufficient for two string parameters.

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 Sovrn Commerce for a given programme and destination URL.' It uses specific verbs and resources, and names the network to distinguish it from the many sibling generate_tracking_link 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?

It provides explicit when-to-use guidance: '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 a useful prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternative tools, so a 4 is appropriate.

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