Create sponsorship offer

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

Annotations only declare the generic write profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds behavior annotations cannot express: the two-step preview/confirm protocol, the guarantee that nothing is written on the first call, the user-approval requirement, and the initial status value. This is exactly the kind of non-obvious side-effect disclosure the description should carry.

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?

Front-loads what the tool does and the resulting state, then spends its remaining sentences on the one thing an agent will get wrong: the two-call confirm flow. No filler, no restatement of the title.

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 complex write tool with 11 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the critical behavioral protocol, the payload fields and the resulting status. It does not describe what the preview actually returns or note that the creator must already be saved and valid, leaving a small gap for a mutation of this complexity.

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 only 27% across 11 parameters, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning for confirm_token, disclosure, must_include_phrases, must_include_link, amount and product, but leaves brand, currency, notes and post_by entirely undocumented in both the schema and the prose, and gives no formats (e.g., date pattern, currency code, handle syntax).

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Brand creates an offer to a saved creator') and enumerates the payload it carries: amount, product, post requirements, disclosure markers. It also pins the resulting state (`offered`). It does not explicitly contrast itself with the creator-side sibling `respond_to_offer`, so sibling differentiation is only implied.

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?

Gives concrete operating instructions: the first call without confirm_token returns only a preview, the preview must be shown to the user, and the second call must reuse identical arguments plus the token. It does not say when this tool is preferable to sibling alternatives (e.g., respond_to_offer or cancel_deal), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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