Delete a photo album from your Skylight Calendar by specifying its ID. Optionally provide a frame ID to target a specific frame.
Delete a photo album.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| frameId | No |
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 / id / anyOfRemoved value: -[
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "number"
- }
-]Input schema / properties / id / typeAdded value: +[
+ "string",
+ "number"
+]v0.4.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether contained photos are also destroyed, whether frameId scopes the deletion, or whether the action is reversible. With annotations carrying the basics, this is a thin but non-contradictory entry.
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 no padding, which is structurally sound. However, there is no content beyond the minimum, so it is minimally sized rather than optimally informative.
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 destructive mutation tool with two parameters (one undocumented), no output schema, and no permission or cascade information, the description is too thin. An agent cannot tell what side effects accompany the deletion or how frameId alters behavior.
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 description coverage is 0%: neither 'id' nor 'frameId' is documented in the schema, and the description does not explain their formats or which entity frameId refers to. The description fails to compensate for the coverage gap, leaving the frameId parameter's purpose entirely opaque.
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 ('Delete a photo album'), which cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling create_album, update_album, add_to_album and remove_from_album. It does not explicitly contrast with those siblings, but the action is unambiguous.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. must own the album, must be a frame member), and no mention of alternatives or the distinction from remove_from_album. The agent gets zero routing help beyond the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.