skylight_add_message_comment

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the write/visibility profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond the tautological statement that it comments on a message/photo — no note on who sees the comment, whether it can be removed, or what it returns.

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?

A single short sentence with zero padding and the key action front-loaded. It is efficient, though so terse that it reads as a fragment rather than a structured definition.

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 destructive write tool with three parameters, only 33% schema coverage, and no output schema, one sentence leaves the agent guessing about the id/frameId relationship and side effects. The annotations carry safety, but the description does not fill the remaining gaps.

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?

Only 33% of parameters have schema descriptions (body only). The description's phrase 'frame message/photo' loosely hints at the relationship between frameId and the target, but it never explains what 'id' identifies (message id vs. frame id) or how the optional frameId changes behavior, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

Names a specific verb ('comment') and resource ('frame message/photo'), which is enough for an agent to know this adds a comment to an existing message or photo. It does not, however, distinguish itself from near siblings such as skylight_set_message_caption or skylight_like_message, so it stops short of 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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisite that the message/photo must already exist, and no mention of why one would comment rather than caption or like. Usage is only implied by the name.

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