affiliate_yieldkit_generate_tracking_link

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It states 'Returns a TrackingLink' and advises confirming programmeId via list_programmes, which hints at failure risk. However, it omits authentication requirements, error behavior, or any side effects, leaving the agent with uncertainty about prerequisites.

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 concise: exactly three sentences, each adding value. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second provides usage context, and the third gives a critical prerequisite. No unnecessary wording or repetition.

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 link generation tool, the description covers purpose, usage, and a key prerequisite. It does not mention authentication or output details, but given the simplicity and the explicit pointer to list_programmes, it is mostly complete. A small gap remains regarding expected auth state and error handling.

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 explain parameters. It references 'a given programme and destination URL,' mapping to programmeId and destinationUrl, and suggests using list_programmes to obtain the correct programmeId. Yet it does not provide detailed formats, constraints, or examples, leaving some ambiguity about expected values.

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 function: 'Generate a tracking link on Yieldkit for a given programme and destination URL.' This uses a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from sibling tools by naming Yieldkit, avoiding confusion with other networks' 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?

The description provides clear when-to-use guidance: '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 recommends pairing with list_programmes to confirm the programmeId, which is an explicit usage note. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or alternatives beyond that pairing.

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