teams_send_channel_message

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only states the function but omits critical behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether the operation is reversible, rate limits, or any side effects.

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 a single sentence without waste, but it lacks any structural elements like usage context or bullet points. It is minimally adequate in length.

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?

Given the tool's complexity and the absence of output schema or annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not describe return values, error conditions, or prerequisites, making it nearly unusable for an AI 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 input schema is empty, implying an impossible tool (sending a message without any parameters). The description does not clarify this paradox or explain how the tool determines the channel or message content. Schematically 100% covered, but the coverage is meaningless.

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 clearly states the action ('sends a text message') and target ('to a Microsoft Teams channel via Graph API'). It is specific enough to understand the tool's core function, though it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'teams_send_message' which likely targets individual chats.

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 is provided on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. The sibling 'teams_send_message' could serve a similar but distinct purpose, but the description offers no distinction or context for selection.

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