affiliate_tapfiliate_generate_tracking_link

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return type ('Returns a TrackingLink') and hints at a prerequisite (confirm programmeId), but it does not mention authentication requirements (e.g., verify_auth sibling), whether the link is persistent, or any side effects. This is adequate but not rich, especially for a tool that creates an external resource.

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 core action, and every sentence adds value: what it does, when to use it, and what it returns with a useful pairing tip. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 relatively simple 3-parameter tool, the description covers the main action, usage context, and return type, but lacks parameter-level detail (especially 'brand') and does not advise checking authentication via the existing verify_auth sibling. Given the presence of many sibling generate_tracking_link tools, this is functional but not fully contextual.

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%, and the description does little to explain the parameters. It references 'programme and destination URL' which maps to programmeId and destinationUrl, but completely omits mention of the 'brand' parameter, its purpose, or acceptable values. This leaves a required parameter semantically unexplained.

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 verb and resource: 'Generate a tracking link on Tapfiliate for a given programme and destination URL.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_programmes or verify_auth, and the network name in the tool title (tapfiliate) is echoed in the description, making its specific 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?

The description explicitly gives when to use it: '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 adds actionable sequencing. However, it does not mention alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of providing full when-not-to-use guidance.

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