Rename a Skylight photo album or hide it from the frame slideshow by updating its title or slideshow setting.
Update a photo album (rename, hide from slideshow).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| title | No | ||
| frameId | No | ||
| exclude_from_slideshow | No | Hide this album from the frame slideshow. |
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 declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is already known. The description adds that updates can include renaming and hiding, but doesn't disclose side effects, whether changes are reversible, or authentication requirements. It performs moderately beyond annotations but not richly.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and examples. No wasted words.
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?
With no output schema and incomplete parameter coverage, the description provides a minimal but adequate overview. It doesn't explain return values or edge cases, leaving gaps for an agent to infer. Basic completeness for a simple update tool.
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 25%, so most parameters lack descriptions. The description lists 'rename' and 'hide from slideshow' which map to 'title' and 'exclude_from_slideshow', but leaves 'frameId' unexplained. It adds some meaning but doesn't compensate for the low coverage.
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 states a specific verb and resource ('Update a photo album') and enumerates two updatable aspects (rename, hide from slideshow), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like create_album or delete_album. It could be slightly more precise about the scope of updates, but it's clear.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like skylight_add_to_album or skylight_set_device_album, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Only implied usage from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.