Save a prepared inline message result for a user so they can send it through an inline button, with optional restrictions for user, group, or channel chats.
Save a prepared inline message result for a user to send via inline button.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | No | ||
| user_id | Yes | User ID | |
| allow_bot_chats | No | ||
| allow_user_chats | No | ||
| allow_group_chats | No | ||
| allow_channel_chats | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a write, idempotent, and non-destructive operation. The description adds context that the result is 'prepared' and destined for an inline button, but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., overwriting existing saved messages) or any other behavioral nuances.
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 sentence of 14 words, front-loaded with the essential action and purpose. No wasted words or redundant 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?
Given the tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and very low schema description coverage, the description is too minimal. It omits parameter semantics, usage context, and any mention of return value or behavioral edge cases, making it insufficient for correct invocation.
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 only 17% (only user_id is described). The description does not explain any of the parameters beyond what the schema already provides. The 'result' parameter and the four allow_* boolean flags remain completely undescribed, leaving the agent without guidance on their meaning or usage.
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 clearly states a specific action ('Save') on a specific resource ('prepared inline message result') with a clear purpose ('for a user to send via inline button'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like save_prepared_keyboard_button and answer_inline_query.
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 implies usage: when you have a prepared inline message result to save for a user. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide any exclusions or conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.