skylight_copy_messages_to_frames

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It does add one useful behavioral trait: the source frame is 'inferred from the app bundle, not live-verified.' However, it omits other material behaviors like whether copying is non-destructive to the originals, whether duplicates are created, or any required permissions. Partial transparency is present, but significant gaps remain.

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 efficient sentence with the core action front-loaded and the caveat tucked into parentheses. Every word earns its place; there is no filler or repetition of schema information.

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?

The tool is fairly simple, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify more. It fails to state what the source frame parameter is for when not inferred, and it says nothing about the return value or failure behavior. The existing caveat is helpful, but an agent could not fully anticipate how to specify a source frame or what a successful copy returns.

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 coverage is 67%, so the description should compensate for the undocumented frameId. It partially does by referring to 'this frame' and explaining the app-bundle inference, but it never explicitly maps frameId to the source frame. The descriptions for message_ids and new_frame_ids are already in the schema, though the schema's note to list frames adds value.

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 specific action ('Copy'), the resource ('messages/photos'), and the destination ('other frames on the account'). It clearly distinguishes the tool from related siblings like skylight_delete_messages or skylight_like_message, since copying is a unique operation. The phrasing 'from this frame' is understandable in context.

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 moving or deleting messages, or how it relates to skylight_add_to_album. The caveat about app-bundle inference is a behavioral note, not usage direction. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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