Grant or deduct reward points to family member categories with specified point amounts. Adjust balances positively or negatively to manage rewards.
Grant (or deduct) reward points to family members.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| points | Yes | Points to add (can be negative to deduct). | |
| frameId | No | ||
| category_ids | Yes | Member category ids to grant points to. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"v0.7.1Input schema / properties / category_ids / items / anyOfRemoved value: -[
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "number"
- }
-]Input schema / properties / category_ids / items / typeAdded value: +[
+ "string",
+ "number"
+]v0.4.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations show readOnlyHint=false, which already signals mutation, and the schema notes negative points can deduct. The description reinforces that behavior but does not disclose side effects, postconditions, or prerequisites beyond what the schema and annotations already convey.
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 sentence with zero filler, front-loading the verb and resource. It is appropriately compact for a simple tool.
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 simple three-parameter mutation, the description is basically adequate: it states the action, the target, and the ability to deduct. Clear gaps remain around frameId semantics and how this differs from reward redemption, so it is only minimally viable.
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?
Two of the three parameters have schema descriptions, so the description adds little over the schema. It does not explain frameId at all, leaving one parameter semantically undocumented.
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 uses a specific verb ('Grant') and resource ('reward points') and names the recipient ('family members'), so the core operation is clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the reward siblings such as redeem_reward or get_reward_points, which keeps it at 4 rather than 5.
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 about when to use this tool versus skylight_redeem_reward or skylight_get_reward_points, and no exclusion criteria are mentioned. The description implies usage for manually adjusting point balances but leaves the decision entirely to the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.