telegram_click_inline_button

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

Annotations already set readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds that clicking sends a callback query and may change bot state. This goes beyond the structured hints and helps the agent anticipate side effects.

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?

Two tight sentences convey the action, the primary behavior, and the exclusions without redundancy. The core action is front-loaded.

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 small action tool with no output schema, the description gives the key context: what a click does, that bot state may change, and which button types are unsupported. It could add a pointer to telegram_get_inline_buttons for discovering button positions, but it is otherwise sufficient.

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 is the only textual source for parameter meaning. It clarifies that row and column locate the button, and chat_id/message_id are self-evident message identifiers, but it does not document all four parameters in detail or explain indexing.

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 begins with a specific verb ('Press') and a precise resource ('a Telegram bot inline callback button'), then narrows scope by row and column. It also distinguishes this from siblings by explicitly limiting itself to callback buttons and naming blocked button types.

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?

It gives clear when-not guidance: only callback buttons, with payments, URL/login, web-app, game, and password buttons excluded. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative as the right choice for those other button kinds, so it doesn't earn a 5.

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