skylight_update_reward

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and 'Update a reward' provides none. It does not disclose whether this is a partial or full update, whether omitted fields are left unchanged, what happens to existing redemptions or point values, or whether any permissions are required. This is effectively a restatement of the tool name.

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 extremely short at two words, which is concise but is under-specification rather than earned conciseness. It contains no substantive information that helps an agent select or invoke the tool correctly.

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?

This is an update/mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation. The description gives no information about required id semantics, return values, error behavior, or update behavior, making it inadequate for correct invocation among many sibling tools.

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 adds no meaning to any of the five parameters. The schema shows fields like id, name, frameId, point_value, and category_ids, but the description does not explain what each field represents, how they interact, or which are required beyond the schema's own constraints.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Update a reward.' This distinguishes it at a basic level from create/delete/list/get reward tools, but it does not specify what fields or aspects of a reward are updated, and it does not differentiate it from reward lifecycle siblings like add_reward_points or redeem_reward.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_reward_points, redeem_reward, or update_chore. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely from the tool name and schema.

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