Teams Send Adaptive Card

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits like permissions needed, whether the operation is destructive, rate limits, or error conditions. Minimal value added.

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?

Single sentence delivers core information without waste. Structure is front-loaded, presenting verb and key components efficiently.

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?

Lacks explanation of what an Adaptive Card is, how the channel is specified (likely from context), or return value/error handling. For a messaging tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, more context is needed for an AI agent to use it confidently.

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 100% with all parameters documented. Description adds context that link_url and link_label form an action button, which slightly enriches the schema. Meets baseline expectations but does not exceed.

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?

Description clearly states it sends a rich Adaptive Card to a Teams channel with title, body, and optional link. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like teams_send_message for plain text, relying on the mention of 'Adaptive Card' to differentiate.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as teams_send_dm or teams_send_message. No context on prerequisites, target channel identification, or scenarios where Adaptive Cards are preferable.

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