Add Teams Chat Member

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of disclosure. It only restates the action without revealing side effects, required permissions, idempotency, or failure behavior. There is no added value beyond the action itself.

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 concise sentence with the key information front-loaded. The additional Chinese intent lines are compact and provide multilingual support without verbosity.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain expected result, error cases, prerequisites, or post-conditions. The schema covers parameters but not behavioral context, leaving significant gaps.

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%, and all parameters are fully described in the schema (chatId, member with role and userId, visibleHistoryStartDateTime). The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 the specific action with a verb and resource: 'Add a user to an existing Teams group chat.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like teams_add_team_member or teams_add_channel_member by specifying 'group chat'.

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 phrase 'existing Teams group chat' provides clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it (e.g., for team or channel membership). The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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