telegram_edit_reply_markup

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does explicitly disclose that null/omitted buttons strip markup, which is a destructive action, and that the target must be an existing message. However, it does not mention side effects on message content, permission requirements, or the separate clear parameter's behavior.

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 concise sentences with no fluff. The core action is front-loaded, and the parameter guidance follows naturally without redundancy.

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 description covers the primary use case well and benefits from an output schema, but it leaves material gaps: the clear flag and row_width are undocumented, and there are no notes about constraints or failure modes. For a mutation tool with zero annotations, a bit more context would be needed for fully confident 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 0%, and the description compensates partially by explaining the buttons parameter's two modes: null/omit to clear and a [{id,label}] list to set. However, it does not explain the clear boolean or row_width parameter, which are both non-obvious and absent from the schema descriptions.

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 a specific verb ('Edit or clear') and resource ('inline buttons on an existing message'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like telegram_send_message and telegram_get_updates by focusing on modifying an existing message's markup.

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 gives clear operational guidance: pass buttons=null/omit to strip markup, or provide a new list to set buttons. It does not name sibling alternatives or explicitly state when not to use the tool, but the context of editing an existing message is sufficiently clear.

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