ghl_course_create_offer

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

Annotations already flag non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world mutation; the description adds real value beyond that by listing fields the API silently ignores (locationId, userId, originId, addProductToMembers), stating source is forced to 'membership', and promising the full offer is returned. It stops short of describing failure modes or whether partial bodies are rejected.

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 the verb and resource, but the opening header about a {productId} path parameter is irrelevant to this endpoint, and the trailing Endpoint/Version/OAuth lines duplicate prerequisites already stated in prose. Several sentences could be merged.

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 mutation tool with a large nested body and no output schema, the description covers auth requirements, the endpoint and version header, the return value, and key field restrictions. The unexplained {productId} reference and absent error behavior keep it from full marks.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by declaring which submitted fields are not accepted and that 'source' cannot be set — semantics the schema does not encode. The stray '{productId} path parameter' note does not map to any parameter in this tool's schema, slightly muddying the gain.

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 ('Create a membership offer') and names the API surface (COURSES API). It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like ghl_course_update_offer, ghl_course_get_offer, and ghl_course_list_offers.

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 preconditions: a Sub-Account (location) token, the courses.write scope, and the note that non-free types require payment integrations to be configured upstream. It does not explicitly route between this and update_offer/delete_offer, but the create-vs-modify distinction is clear from the name.

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