edit_message_reply_markup

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds no extra behavioral context. It does not mention requirements like bot permissions, error cases (e.g., message not found or no inline keyboard), or the handling of inline_message_id versus chat_id+message_id, which would be valuable beyond the annotations.

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 concise sentence: 'Edit the inline keyboard of a message.' It avoids redundancy and gets to the point, earning high marks for efficiency, though it may be slightly too terse for the tool's complexity.

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?

With 4 parameters, multiple reply_markup types, and an alternative inline_message_id, the tool has notable complexity, but the description provides only one line. It fails to explain when to use this vs sibling edit_message_* tools, how to remove a keyboard, or how inline messages are targeted. The context is incomplete for an agent to invoke it correctly, despite annotations providing some safety context.

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 descriptions cover 75% of parameters (chat_id, message_id, reply_markup), and the description does not add meaningful detail about these parameters or the undocumented inline_message_id. It neither clarifies parameter usage nor compensates for the missing schema description of inline_message_id, so it provides only marginal additional value.

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' and identifies the resource 'inline keyboard of a message', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like edit_message_text or edit_message_caption. However, it says 'inline keyboard' while the reply_markup parameter accepts broader keyboard types (ReplyKeyboardMarkup, ReplyKeyboardRemove, ForceReply), slightly narrowing the actual scope.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as edit_message_text, edit_message_caption, or other message editing tools. There is no mention of use cases, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent without decision support.

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