skylight_add_reward_points

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive mutation reaching external state. The description adds that deduction is possible (negative points), but says nothing about whether deductions can drive a balance below zero, whether the operation is idempotent, or what permissions/scope are needed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the parenthetical clarifying the deduct case; no filler or restatement of the title. It is efficient, though the terseness leaves room that could have been spent on routing guidance.

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 3-parameter mutation with no output schema and an undocumented frameId, the description is too thin: it omits the tool's relationship to the reward-points read/list siblings and gives no sense of the effect or result of a call. An agent has enough to attempt a call but not enough to choose it confidently over alternatives.

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%: points and category_ids are described in the schema, and the description corroborates that points go to family members. However, frameId has no documentation in either the description or the schema, and the description adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema text.

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 verb (grant/deduct) and resource (reward points) with the target (family members), so an agent can distinguish it from reward-related siblings such as get_reward_points, create_reward, and redeem_reward. It stops short of naming those alternatives, so differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus skylight_get_reward_points (viewing balances), skylight_create_reward (defining a reward), or skylight_redeem_reward. The description only says what it does, leaving the agent to infer the adjacency to the point-balance siblings.

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