affiliate_tune_generate_tracking_link

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the return type (TrackingLink) and hints at a prerequisite (confirm programmeId). However, it doesn't state whether authentication is required, whether the operation has side effects, or how errors are surfaced, leaving gaps for a tool with zero annotation safety signals.

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 compact sentences with no filler; the first sentence states the action, the second gives the use case, and the third provides a cross-tool tip. Every sentence earns its place.

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 straightforward two-parameter tool, the description covers purpose, when to use, return type, and a prerequisite call. It omits authentication and error behavior, which matters given there are no annotations or output schema, but it remains usable.

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 descriptions are completely absent (0% coverage), so the description compensates by mapping 'programme' to programmeId and 'destination URL' to destinationUrl, and adds the practical advice to confirm the ID via list_programmes. It doesn't detail formats or constraints, but for a two-string parameter tool, this is sufficient.

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 opens with a clear verb and object ('Generate a tracking link on TUNE') and precisely scopes it to a given programme and destination URL. The explicit 'on TUNE' differentiates it from the many sibling network-specific generate_tracking_link tools.

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 gives an explicit use case ('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. It doesn't explicitly exclude other networks, but the TUNE scoping and sibling names make the context clear.

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