Reverse a reward redemption to undo an incorrect or accidental claim, restoring the member's available rewards.
Reverse a reward redemption.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| frameId | No | ||
| category_id | No | Member who redeemed, if required to identify the redemption to reverse. |
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?
While annotations indicate a mutating operation (readOnlyHint=false) but not destructive, the description adds no behavioral detail beyond the verb 'reverse'. It does not disclose side effects like point restoration or redemption status changes, and provides no context about permissions or consequences.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient and to the point, though its brevity contributes to the lack of substance in other dimensions.
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 tool with three parameters, no output schema, and sparse annotations, the description is drastically incomplete. An agent cannot determine which parameters are required, what a reversal affects, or what the expected result is, making the tool unsafe to invoke correctly without external knowledge.
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 only 33%, with only category_id having an inline description. The tool description does not explain the role of id, frameId, or category_id, nor does it state which identifiers are necessary to reverse a redemption. It completely fails to compensate for the sparse 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?
The description clearly states the tool's function: reversing a reward redemption. It uses a specific verb and resource, making it distinguishable from siblings like skylight_redeem_reward, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as skylight_delete_reward or skylight_redeem_reward. The description does not mention error correction scenarios or contrast with related actions, leaving usage entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.