affiliate_value-commerce-advertiser_generate_tracking_link

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full disclosure burden. It mentions the return type (TrackingLink) and a caveat about confirming programmeId, but does not disclose authentication requirements, side effects (if any), rate limits, or error behavior. This is a significant gap for a generation 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 sentences: main action, use case, and workflow tip. It is front-loaded and every sentence adds value. 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should do more. It covers purpose, use case, and return type, but leaves the 'brand' parameter undocumented and does not describe the structure of a TrackingLink. It is adequate for a simple tool but has clear gaps.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains programmeId and destinationUrl implicitly via 'programme and destination URL', and gives extra guidance for programmeId (confirm with list_programmes). However, the 'brand' parameter is completely unexplained, and the descriptions are still not full parameter-level semantics.

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 (Generate), the resource (tracking link on ValueCommerce advertiser), and the key inputs (programme and destination URL). It distinguishes from sibling network-specific tools by naming ValueCommerce and the advertiser role.

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 says when to use it ('when the user wants to share an affiliate link to a specific product or page on a merchant they have joined') and advises pairing with list_programmes to confirm the programmeId. It does not explicitly exclude the non-advertiser ValueCommerce variant, but the use case and network/role are clear enough.

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