Reverse a reward redemption for a Skylight Calendar family member to correct a mistaken redemption and restore the reward's status.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether points are refunded, whether the redemption record is deleted or merely marked reversed, whether the call is idempotent, or what permissions are needed for a mutation tool.
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 four-word sentence with zero waste and the verb front-loaded. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification rather than true conciseness.
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 mutation tool with no output schema and a 3-parameter schema that is largely undescribed, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot tell whether id is a redemption id or a reward id, when frameId is required, or what state the reward ends up in after the call.
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 coverage is only 33% (just the oddly named category_id), leaving id and frameId completely undocumented. The description adds no parameter meaning at all, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap on a 3-parameter tool.
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 (reverse) and resource (reward redemption), which clearly marks it as the inverse of the sibling skylight_redeem_reward. It is unambiguous what operation is being requested, though it never names the sibling or the scope of the reversal.
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 preconditions, and no mention of the sibling skylight_redeem_reward or skylight_get_reward as related tools. The agent must infer the usage scenario entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.