savePreparedInlineMessage

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does add meaningful behavior: the message is stored for a user and the returned object has an expiration date. However, it does not disclose whether saving is idempotent, whether previous saved messages are overwritten, or what authentication/state conditions apply.

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 two sentences with no filler. The action and context are front-loaded, and the return-value detail is kept brief but informative. Every sentence earns its place.

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 six parameters, a nested object, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is adequate but thin. It mentions the return object and expiration, but omits the broader workflow, ordering constraints, and how this differs from directly answering an inline query, leaving some contextual gaps for an agent.

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 100%, so the parameters are already well documented by the schema. The description only reinforces that the message relates to a Mini App user and adds no additional detail about the parameters themselves, which stays exactly at the baseline.

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 names a specific verb ('Store') and a specific resource ('a message that can be sent by a user of a Mini App'). It also states the return type (PreparedInlineMessage with a unique identifier and expiration date), which clearly differentiates it from siblings like answerInlineQuery and answerWebAppQuery.

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 Mini App context implies when this should be used, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives. An agent must infer that this is for saving a message for later user-initiated sending rather than for answering an inline query directly.

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