skylight_add_message_comment

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds no behavioral details beyond the word 'Comment', which merely restates the mutation. It does not disclose effects on existing messages, whether the comment is posted immediately, or any required permissions.

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 and front-loaded, with no filler words. It is concise, but it is concise to the point of incompleteness; still, as a conciseness measure, the single sentence earns its place.

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 tool with 3 parameters, no output schema, and only minimal annotation coverage, the description is too sparse. It leaves unclear the meaning of 'id', the optionality/role of 'frameId', and what happens after the comment is added. An agent would likely need external knowledge to invoke this correctly in a real context.

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 only 33%, with only 'body' having a schema description. The description fails to explain what 'id' refers to or how 'frameId' relates to the message/photo, and it does not compensate for the undocumented parameters. No meaningful parameter semantics are added beyond the schema.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('Comment') and resource ('frame message/photo'), so an agent can infer the tool's basic purpose. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like skylight_like_message or skylight_set_message_caption, so it gets a 4 rather than a 5.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites such as knowing the message ID or frame context. There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use information, leaving the agent to rely on the name and schema alone.

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