skylight_copy_messages_to_frames

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It only discloses that the source frame is inferred and not live-verified; it does not mention whether the operation is reversible, whether permissions are needed, or what happens on partial failure or copy conflicts. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 sentence with a leading verb and a parenthetical caveat; every word earns its place and the structure is easy to scan.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with no annotations or output schema, this description is too sparse: it omits the meaning of frameId, expected behavior/response, and any edge-case handling. The caveat about live-verification helps but doesn't compensate for these 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?

Schema already documents message_ids and new_frame_ids, covering 67% of parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific detail and leaves frameId semantics unmentioned, though it does clarify the overall copy relationship between source and destination.

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+resource ('Copy messages/photos') and identifies the scope (from current frame to other frames on the account), clearly distinguishing it from sibling message/frame tools.

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?

It states the operation's context (copying messages/photos between frames) and notes the source is inferred from the app bundle, giving the agent context on when it applies. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not conditions, so not a 5.

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