teams_send_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for a mutation tool. It does disclose that a connected Microsoft 365 work or school account is required (unlike a personal account), which is real value, but says nothing about failure modes, whether the target chat must already exist, or what happens if the account is not connected.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, which is good, but the text is visibly truncated mid-parenthetical, leaving an incomplete sentence in the definition. It is short, yet that shortness comes partly from missing content rather than efficient phrasing.

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 send/write operation with no annotations, no output schema, and an empty parameter schema, the definition is materially incomplete. It never explains how the destination chat and message body are supplied when the tool accepts no arguments, which is the single most important thing an agent needs.

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 declares zero properties, so there are no parameters to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. However, with no arguments at all it is unclear how a caller targets a recipient or composes the text, which the description could have compensated for.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: sends a text message to a Microsoft Teams chat. The word 'chat' usefully distinguishes it from the sibling teams_send_channel_message, though the truncation cuts off the qualifying clause and leaves the scope slightly ambiguous.

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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternatives. The dangling '(connect...' hints at a connected-account prerequisite but the sentence never completes, so the agent gets no actionable routing or precondition information.

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