skylight_delete_reward

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it says nothing about whether deletion is permanent, what happens to a member's existing reward points or redemptions, or whether the optional frameId scopes the operation.

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?

It is a single clause with no wasted words and the action is front-loaded, but this brevity is under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness for a destructive mutation 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 destructive tool with no output schema and two undocumented parameters, the definition omits the consequences of deletion, the role of frameId, and any recovery/undo path. The annotations carry the entire burden.

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% for two parameters. The description never mentions 'id' or 'frameId', so it fails to compensate for the complete absence of parameter documentation in the schema.

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?

"Delete a reward" states a verb and a resource, so the purpose is not misleading, but it essentially restates the tool name (skylight_delete_reward) without adding scope, and it draws no boundary against siblings like skylight_get_reward, skylight_update_reward, or skylight_unredeem_reward.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives in a sibling set that contains several closely related reward operations (delete vs. unredeem vs. update). The agent must infer everything from the name alone.

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