send-chat-message

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it explicitly labels the operation as WRITE, requires confirm=true, and mandates explicit user approval before execution. This goes beyond the structured annotations and clarifies the safety gate.

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?

Two concise sentences front-load the primary action ('SEND') and the key safety requirement. Every clause adds information; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 send operation with a fully described schema and annotations, the description covers the essential behavioral contract: what it does, the write nature, the confirm requirement, and the user identity. No output schema exists, but return value explanation is unnecessary for this action.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters, including the confirm gate semantics. The description adds no additional parameter-level details beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('SEND') and resource ('a message to a Teams chat (1:1 or group)') and notes it operates as the signed-in user. This distinguishes it clearly from sibling send-channel-message, which targets channels, and from mail send tools.

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 specifies the target context ('Teams chat (1:1 or group)') and the user identity, making it clear when this tool applies. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions, but the sibling list and the 'chat' vs 'channel' distinction provide enough contextual guidance.

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