Modify an existing reward's name, point value, category, or frame to keep reward information current.
Update a reward.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| name | No | ||
| frameId | No | ||
| point_value | No | ||
| category_ids | 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 / category_ids / items / anyOfRemoved value: -[
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "number"
- }
-]Input schema / properties / category_ids / items / typeAdded value: +[
+ "string",
+ "number"
+]v0.4.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already communicate that the tool is not read-only and not destructive, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond that. It does not explain partial-update semantics, what happens to existing reward values, whether redemption status is affected, or what the response contains.
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 short and front-loaded, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. There is almost no content to structure, and no meaningful information beyond the tool name.
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 5-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no field descriptions, this description is far from complete. It omits behavior, return value, optional field semantics, and any caveats, so an agent cannot confidently invoke the tool correctly.
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% and the description does not clarify any of the five parameters. It fails to explain what frameId represents, how category_ids should be structured, or whether point_value is an absolute value or a delta, leaving the agent without needed semantic information.
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 is a near-verbatim restatement of the tool name: 'Update a reward.' It identifies the action and resource but adds no detail and does not differentiate this tool from siblings like create_reward, delete_reward, redeem_reward, or add_reward_points.
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, what the update is intended for, or when a sibling tool should be chosen instead. An agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and parameter names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.