skylight_delete_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the delete action, without disclosing whether deletion is permanent, whether it affects associated data, whether authorization is required, or whether the operation can be undone. For a destructive action, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 very short and front-loaded, using a single efficient sentence that adds the resource context 'frame message/photo.' It earns its place, though the awkward slash in 'message/photo' creates mild ambiguity about whether these are two distinct resource types or one combined type.

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 has no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, yet the description provides only a minimal action statement. It does not specify which identifiers are required, what happens after deletion, or how this relates to other message-based tools. The description is insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool with confidence.

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 does not explain either parameter. The 'id' property is understandable as the identifier of the message, but 'frameId' is left unexplained, and the description does not clarify whether both are needed, what formats are expected, or how they relate to the 'frame message/photo' concept.

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 'Delete a frame message/photo' gives a clear verb ('delete') and a specific resource type ('frame message/photo'), which is more precise than the bare tool name. It is clear enough to be distinguished from the sibling tool skylight_delete_messages, though it does not explicitly call out that difference.

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. In particular, the sibling skylight_delete_messages exists, but the description does not say whether this singular tool is for a single message/photo while the plural is for bulk deletion, nor does it state any prerequisites or context.

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