Update an existing Skylight Calendar reward by changing its name, point value, frame, or category assignments to adjust family incentives.
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 declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive open-world mutation. The description adds nothing beyond that — no statement about required permissions, partial-update semantics, or what happens to fields not supplied.
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 single sentence is maximally short with no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise — the one sentence conveys nothing the tool name did not already convey.
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 five-parameter mutation tool with no annotations detailing update semantics, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, the description is far too thin. It omits partial-update behavior, required fields, valid ranges, and how it differs from sibling reward 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?
Five parameters (id, name, frameId, point_value, category_ids) with 0% schema description coverage and no output schema, yet the description mentions no parameters at all. It does not compensate for the coverage gap, leaving the agent with bare, undocumented field names.
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?
"Update a reward" names a verb and a resource, so an agent knows the general action. But it is effectively a restatement of the tool name skylight_update_reward and gives no differentiation from the many reward siblings (get_reward, create_reward, delete_reward, redeem_reward, 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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite, and no mention of alternatives such as create_reward, get_reward, or redeem_reward. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.