affiliate_webgains_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 of disclosing behavior. It states that the tool 'Returns a TrackingLink' and warns to confirm programmeId via list_programmes, which hints at error potential. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether authentication is required (such as verify_auth), or any rate limits or side effects, leaving important behavioral gaps.

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 short sentences: action, use case, and return type with a pairing tip. It is front-loaded with the primary action, every sentence adds value, and there is no unnecessary verbosity or repetition of schema data.

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 no output schema and no annotations, this description covers the core aspects: what the tool does, when to use it, the return type, and a prerequisite step. The main gap is lack of authentication or error behavior details, but for a two-parameter link-generation tool, it is reasonably complete.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description is the sole source of parameter meaning. It refers to 'programme and destination URL,' mapping to programmeId and destinationUrl, and the pairing instruction adds context for programmeId. However, it does not specify destinationUrl format (e.g., absolute URL) or explicitly state that programmeId comes from list_programmes, leaving room for ambiguity.

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 'Generate a tracking link on Webgains for a given programme and destination URL,' clearly stating the action, target network, and required inputs. It also explains the use case ('when the user wants to share an affiliate link to a specific product or page on a merchant they have joined') and the explicit mention of Webgains distinguishes it from 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?

The description provides a clear usage trigger: '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 concrete prerequisite/alternative step: 'pair with list_programmes to confirm the programmeId before calling.' However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative network-specific tools, though the Webgains label implies this.

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