Redeem a reward by its ID, with optional frame and member category to track who claimed it. Marks the reward as used on the Skylight Calendar.
Redeem a reward.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| frameId | No | ||
| category_id | No | Member redeeming, if required. |
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_id / anyOfRemoved value: -[
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "number"
- }
-]Input schema / properties / category_id / typeAdded value: +[
+ "string",
+ "number"
+]v0.4.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate this is not read-only and not destructive, but the description adds no behavioral context. It does not disclose side effects such as deducting points, marking the reward as redeemed, or changing state in a way that could be reversed with unredeem. With no annotation details beyond boolean hints, the description gives the agent little understanding of what invoking this tool actually changes.
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 maximally short with no filler, which supports conciseness, but it is under-specified to the point of being minimally viable. A single sentence parroting the tool name does not provide the structural information needed for correct invocation.
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 three parameters, no output schema, and no behavioral disclosure, this description is far from complete. The agent cannot determine what to pass for id or frameId, what response to expect, or what side effects will occur. The presence of the sibling skylight_unredeem_reward also suggests reversibility information should be mentioned but is absent.
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?
Only category_id has a schema description ('Member redeeming, if required.'), and id and frameId are left undocumented. The tool description mentions none of the parametersaint, so with 33% schema coverage the agent has no explanation of what 'id' refers to or how frameId differs from id. This is a significant gap for a required parameter.
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 identifies the action ('Redeem') and the resource ('a reward'), so an agent can infer the basic purpose. However, it is nearly a verbatim paraphrase of the tool name and does not explain what redeeming entails or distinguish it from the sibling 'skylight_unredeem_reward' beyond the verb itself.
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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as skylight_create_reward, skylight_list_rewards, or skylight_unredeem_reward. The context where redeeming is appropriate, and any prerequisites like ownership or redemption status, are left entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.