Create Teams Chat

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

Without annotations, the description adds the key behavioral requirement that the signed-in user must be included in the members list. However, it does not disclose other behaviors such as permissions, side effects of creating a chat, or validation rules for one-on-one vs group chats.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. The inclusion of Chinese intents is slightly extraneous but not harmful. Overall, it is efficient and well-structured.

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 tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate context: it explains the main function and a critical prerequisite. Some nuances about chat-type-specific constraints are not covered, but the schema fills most 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context for the 'members' parameter by instructing to include the signed-in user, which is not apparent from the schema alone.

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 ('Create') and the resource ('Teams chat'), specifying both one-on-one and group scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like teams_list_chats and teams_add_chat_member.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool (to create a new chat) and provides a critical guideline: include every participant, including the signed-in user. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear.

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