The short attention span answer is:
"To degrade the ability of the Houthi to interdict Red Sea merchant traffic"
and
"To limit Houthi capacity to act"
Who does this benefit? Any of our allies who use those shipping lanes, and in particular Egypt who stands to lose substantial revenue from further Suez diversions. Helping an ally in the region helps the overall posture.
At a more fundamental level, the unrestricted flow of international commerce is in America's national security interest. (Has been for well over a century)
There is your staff college style answer, for what it's worth.
Whether or not that translates into more merchant carriers returning to their normal maritime trade route remains to be seen.
The risk analysists at Lloyds and elsewhere, and the shipping companies, are certainly playing their own games on their own terms.
The core problem with your question is that it looks at that op through a paper towel roll tube.
Seems to me a bit of a category error to assess that in isolation, as though it exists in its own context.
Are you familiar with the DIME model? This op, as I assess it, is supporting the "I" in DIME.