microsoft_post_chat_message

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

With no annotations, description carries full burden. It fails to disclose key behaviors: what gets created, required permissions, or response format. Only mentions routing under JWT/tenant/company scope.

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?

Short three sentences; first sentence is redundant (restates name). Routing information may be unnecessary for tool selection. Could be more focused.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description fails to specify what chat platform (Teams, Outlook, etc.) or message type, leaving the agent with insufficient context. Sibling teams_post_chat_message suggests Teams, but is not clarified.

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 has 0% description coverage. Description says 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation' but does not specify expected fields or format, adding minimal value beyond the schema itself.

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 merely restates the tool name as 'Microsoft connector operation post_chat_message' without explaining what it does (e.g., send a Teams chat message, reply, etc.). The routing info adds no purpose clarity.

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 like teams_post_chat_message or microsoft_send_email. No context or exclusions provided.

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