graph_teams_message_alias

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently explains the alias resolution and forwarding behavior, but it does not mention what happens for invalid aliases, whether permissions are needed, or any side effects beyond posting the message. This is adequate for a simple wrapper but not richly transparent.

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 filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the follow-up sentence provides useful implementation detail about alias resolution and forwarding. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple wrapper tool, the description provides a reasonable baseline: it states what it does and where it forwards. However, there is no output schema or annotations, and the description does not cover error behavior, response format, or content_type semantics, leaving some context missing for an agent.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics for alias by explaining that it is a saved alias resolved into team_id and channel_id. Text is reasonably implied by 'post a message', but content_type is left completely unexplained, including its default 'html' and allowed values.

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 states a specific action and resource: posting a message to a Teams channel via a saved alias. It also clarifies the internal behavior by explaining that the alias resolves to team_id and channel_id and is forwarded to graph_teams_message, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 implies that this tool should be used when a saved alias is available, since it resolves the alias and forwards to graph_teams_message. However, it does not explicitly contrast this with graph_teams_message or state when an agent should choose one over the other; the usage guidance is left to inference.

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