Update a family member's birthday and dietary preferences in Skylight Calendar; use the member ID. Set the member name separately via category update.
Update a family member's profile (birthday, dietary preferences). The member's name is the category label — set it via skylight_update_category.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Category/member id. | |
| frameId | No | ||
| birthday | No | YYYY-MM-DD | |
| dietary_preferences | No |
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 already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the genuinely useful constraint that the name is not editable here, but it says nothing about partial-update behavior, permission requirements, or what happens to unspecified fields.
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 tight sentences with the action and its fields front-loaded and the disambiguation caveat second. Every phrase carries information; nothing is padded.
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 half the parameters undocumented, the description covers the core purpose and the name caveat but omits permissions, partial-update semantics, and the role of frameId. Adequate as a minimum viable definition, with visible gaps.
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 50%: id and birthday have schema descriptions, while frameId and dietary_preferences do not. The description names birthday and dietary_preferences as the payload of this operation, which recovers meaning for dietary_preferences, but frameId remains undocumented in both places.
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 and resource ('Update a family member's profile') and names the concrete fields it affects (birthday, dietary preferences). It also disambiguates a confusing sibling case by clarifying that the member name is a category label handled elsewhere, though it never contrasts itself with skylight_update_profile.
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?
It gives one explicit routing rule — set the name via skylight_update_category — which functions as a 'when-not' for this tool. However it offers no guidance on when to prefer this over skylight_update_profile or other profile-adjacent tools, leaving the broader selection decision to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.