skylight_update_family_member

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

Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries some burden. It adds useful context that the member name is represented as a category label and that only birthday and dietary preferences are the profile fields being updated. It does not disclose partial-update behavior, side effects, or error conditions, but enough behavioral context is supplied for a basic profile update.

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 two sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and then immediately addresses the most likely point of confusion with a sibling tool. Every phrase earns its place and there is no filler.

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 4-parameter update tool with no output schema, this description provides enough to know the primary purpose and the name-routing rule, but it leaves frameId undocumented and does not clarify whether other fields are preserved or reset during an update. The description is minimally viable but has noticeable gaps for fully correct invocation.

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 50%, and the description does not compensate for the undocumented frameId parameter. The description mentions birthday and dietary preferences, but the schema already names them, and only birthday has a format hint. The id is described as 'Category/member id' in the schema, and the description's note about category labels adds meaning, but frameId and dietary_preferences semantics remain ambiguous.

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 a specific action and resource: 'Update a family member's profile (birthday, dietary preferences)'. It also distinguishes itself from a sibling by explicitly noting that the member's name is a category label and should be set via skylight_update_category, so an agent can tell this tool apart without inspecting other definitions.

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 provides explicit guidance for one important routing case: 'The member's name is the category label — set it via skylight_update_category.' This tells the agent when to use a different sibling tool. However, it does not discuss other potential alternatives or broader when-to-use/when-not-to-use conditions, such as when skylight_update_profile might be more appropriate.

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