skylight_like_message

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

Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which classify it as a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation. The description adds no behavioral details beyond that – it doesn't state whether liking is idempotent, whether it toggles, what happens on duplicate likes, or whether the message must exist in the frame. The safety profile is already disclosed by annotations, leaving the description to cover semantics it does not.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler, making it easy to process quickly. It is appropriately minimal for a simple action, though the brevity sacrifices the parameter detail that would make it fully self-contained.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description gives the core action and object type, which is a workable baseline. However, with zero parameter documentation and no behavioral detail, it relies heavily on the agent's ability to infer the meaning of id and frameId from context and siblings.

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%, so the description must clarify id and frameId, but it only offers the phrase 'frame message/photo'. This weakly hints that id targets the message or photo, yet gives no explicit meaning or distinction for the optional frameId. An agent cannot confidently determine which identifier is needed without external knowledge.

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 an imperative verb 'Like' and identifies the resource as 'a frame message/photo', clearly distinguishing the action from sibling tools like skylight_unlike_message and skylight_add_message_comment. However, it doesn't explicitly explain what 'liking' entails or spell out the inverse relationship, so it stops short of a perfect 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of skylight_unlike_message for removing a like, nor caution about already-liked messages. Context must be inferred entirely from the tool name and sibling list.

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