create_service_offering

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false (write operation) and openWorldHint=true, so the basic behavioral profile is covered. The description adds a valuable operational requirement: 'Requires WRITE_ENABLED=true', which is not present in the annotations or schema. It does not contradict the annotations, and it provides additional context beyond what structured data conveys. However, it does not disclose other behavioral aspects such as idempotency (already indicated by idempotentHint=false) or potential side effects, so it adds modest value.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and resource, followed by a concise and relevant requirement. Every word serves a purpose; there is no redundancy, fluff, or extraneous detail. This is an exemplary compact structure that an agent can parse quickly.

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 create operation with four parameters (one required) and no output schema, the description provides the essential information: what it creates, under what parent, and a key prerequisite. It does not mention that the parent business service must exist, but that is implied by the 'under a business service' phrasing and the parent parameter description. Given the simplicity and high schema coverage, the description is largely complete for an agent to invoke it correctly, though it could explicitly note the dependency on an existing business service.

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 100%, meaning each parameter (name, fields, parent, support_group) already has descriptive text in the schema. The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics; it only mentions the action and one precondition. Since the schema fully documents parameters, the description is not required to compensate, yielding the baseline score of 3.

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 states a specific action ('Create a service offering'), the resource ('service_offering'), and the context ('under a business service'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like create_business_service by specifying the type of entity created. The parenthetical '(service_offering)' clarifies the underlying table, leaving no ambiguity about the operation's target.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_business_service or list_service_offerings. It only mentions a precondition ('Requires WRITE_ENABLED=true') which is a configuration requirement, not a usage criterion. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or reference to alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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