skylight_add_reward_points

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It indicates a write operation (grant/deduct) but lacks details on side effects, permissions, limits, reversibility, or what happens with negative balances. The description is too minimal.

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 sentence, efficiently conveying the core action. However, it could be restructured to include more context without losing brevity.

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?

Given the lack of output schema and annotations, and the tool being a write operation, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, error states, or undo mechanisms, leaving gaps for the agent.

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 67%; the description adds no extra meaning beyond the existing parameter descriptions. The frameId parameter is undocumented in both schema and description. The description does not clarify usage or constraints beyond what the schema states.

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: granting or deducting reward points to family members. The verb 'Grant' is specific and the resource 'reward points' is distinct from sibling tools like get or redeem.

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 implies usage (adding/deducting points) but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool over alternatives like skylight_get_reward_points or skylight_redeem_reward. No context on prerequisites or exclusion conditions.

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