tg_click

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

Annotations already flag the action as non-read-only and destructive. The description adds a crucial behavioral detail: pressing a button acts as the user and must be confirmed first unless already asked. This goes beyond the structured safety signals without contradicting them.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior and with no filler. The warning about user confirmation earns its place because it changes invocation behavior.

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 interaction tool, it covers invocation modes, button matching, and safety confirmation. Minor gaps remain around error cases (e.g., no inline keyboard, invalid index) and return values, but these are not critical 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains `button` well: optional, accepts exact-ish text or index. However, `chat` and `message_id` are left to name/type inference and are not explicitly tied to 'the bot's message' in the description.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource: inline keyboards under bot messages. Clearly distinguishes two modes — listing buttons without `button`, pressing one with it — so an agent understands the tool's exact purpose without guessing.

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?

Gives explicit usage context: call without `button` to inspect, with `button` to press, and requires user confirmation before clicking. It does not name alternative sibling tools, but the context is clear enough that alternatives are unnecessary.

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