skylight_update_task

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds no new behavioral context. It does not mention side effects, error handling, or whether the update is partial or full. With no additional behavioral disclosure, this falls below the bar set by read-only tools that add scoping details.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. While it is concise, it is also under-specified for a tool with six parameters, but the dimension measures conciseness, not completeness, and the sentence earns its place by stating the core purpose.

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?

With six parameters, no schema descriptions, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description is far too sparse. It does not explain required fields, the meaning of optional inputs, return behavior, or any side effects, making it inadequate for an agent 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% and the description names none of the six parameters (id, frameId, routine, summary, emoji_icon, reward_points). Since the schema only provides types and no descriptions, the tool description offers no compensation, leaving the agent to guess the meaning and constraints of each field.

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 uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('task-box item'), clearly indicating the operation. It is distinct from sibling tools like skylight_update_meal or skylight_delete_task, though it does not explicitly name alternatives to differentiate itself.

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 no context about when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no examples. It only states the action, leaving the agent to infer when updating a task-box item is appropriate.

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