affiliate_value-commerce_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 adds valuable context by stating 'Returns a TrackingLink' and recommending to 'pair with list_programmes to confirm the programmeId before calling.' However, it does not disclose potential side effects, authentication prerequisites, error behavior, or constraints on the destinationUrl format. This is a notable gap for a tool that creates a link.

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, all informative with no filler or redundancy. It front-loads the core action and follows with usage context and a supporting 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 simple two-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, return type, and a prerequisite action. The main gap is that 'Returns a TrackingLink' does not describe what a TrackingLink contains or how the agent can use it (e.g., to extract a URL). Still, it is reasonably complete for a straightforward generation tool.

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. The description mentions 'programme and destination URL' and explicitly references 'programmeId' in the list_programmes pairing note, which adds meaning beyond the raw schema. However, it does not define the expected format for destinationUrl (e.g., must be a fully-qualified URL) or clarify that programmeId is a network-specific identifier from list_programmes.

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 tool's action: 'Generate a tracking link on ValueCommerce for a given programme and destination URL.' The verb 'Generate' is specific and the resource 'tracking link on ValueCommerce' distinguishes it from sibling tools targeting other networks. It also clarifies the use case: 'share an affiliate link to a specific product or page on a merchant they have joined.'

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 provides a direct usage context: '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 gives a sequencing guideline: 'pair with list_programmes to confirm the programmeId before calling.' However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use other network-specific tools for different networks'), though the ValueCommerce naming partially distinguishes it.

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