skylight_like_message

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, consistent with a 'like' mutation, so no contradiction. But the description adds nothing beyond that: it doesn't say whether liking is idempotent, what happens if the message is already liked, or what a successful call returns — gaps the annotations don't cover.

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 no wasted words, and the action is front-loaded. But its brevity comes from under-specification rather than disciplined editing, so it reads as thin rather than tight.

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?

With no output schema, no annotation detail on idempotency, and 0% schema coverage, the description needed to carry the load and does not. An agent cannot confidently determine which id to pass or what a like does to an already-liked message.

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 compensates for nothing. The critical ambiguity — whether 'id' is a message id or frame id, and what the optional frameId is for — is left entirely unresolved, which matters because 'id' is the only required parameter.

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 verb 'like' and resource 'message/photo' are present, so the basic action is identifiable. However, 'frame message/photo' is ambiguous phrasing, and the description never distinguishes this from the closely named sibling skylight_unlike_message, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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 skylight_unlike_message, skylight_get_message, or skylight_list_messages. No prerequisites, no context, no exclusions — the agent must infer everything from the name.

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