skylight_update_family_member

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add useful behavioral context by revealing that the member's name is actually a category label and not a field updated here. However, it does not disclose whether the update is a merge or a full replacement, what happens to unmentioned fields, any permission requirements, or the success/error response shape. Some meaningful context is present, but significant behavioral details are missing.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and then a focused routing note. There is no filler, repetition, or tangential information. Every sentence earns its place: the first defines the core operation, and the second prevents a likely misuse by directing name updates to the correct sibling 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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is concise but not fully complete. It clearly covers the main purpose and the name/category relationship, but it leaves frameId unexplained and gives no guidance on when or whether it should be provided. An agent might still call this tool correctly for a simple birthday or dietary preference update, but it lacks enough context to confidently handle edge cases or understand the role of all four parameters.

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 50%; only id and birthday have descriptions. The description helps by explicitly naming birthday and dietary_preferences as the updatable profile fields, adding meaning to dietary_preferences which is otherwise undocumented in the schema. However, frameId remains entirely unexplained in both the schema and the description, and no detail is given about how the parameters interact or which are required for a valid update.

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 action: 'Update a family member's profile' and names the specific fields (birthday, dietary preferences). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool skylight_update_category by explaining that the member's name is a category label and must be set through that tool. This gives an agent a precise, non-tautological understanding of what this tool does and how it fits among siblings.

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?

The description explicitly routes name changes to skylight_update_category: 'The member's name is the category label — set it via skylight_update_category.' This tells the agent when not to use this tool for a common related request and names the correct alternative. The first sentence implies this tool is for profile fields like birthday and dietary preferences, providing clear usage context.

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