skylight_update_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds no further behavioral context. It does not disclose whether updates are partial, whether unspecified fields are preserved, or any side effects. The description simply repeats the mutation without elaborating on its effects.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. There is no redundant wording or filler, making it easy to parse quickly.

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, the description omits crucial details: what the response will be, whether updates are partial, and the meaning of optional fields like frameId. It also does not clarify that listId is required. The brevity leaves the agent without enough context to call the tool confidently.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'name, color, or type' but does not map these to the actual schema fields (label, color, kind), nor does it explain the required listId or optional frameId. The enum values for kind are not mentioned, leaving significant ambiguity.

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 ('Update'), resource ('Skylight list'), and lists the mutable aspects ('name, color, or type'). This distinguishes it from other update tools (e.g., skylight_update_meal). However, it uses 'name' and 'type' while the schema uses 'label' and 'kind', creating potential ambiguity but not fatal confusion.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The description only states the action, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name. There is no mention of when not to use it or which sibling tools are more appropriate.

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