Reply To Teams Channel Message

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It adds the signed-in user context and required delegated permission, which is helpful. However, it does not explain side effects (e.g., creates a threaded reply), return values, or rate limits beyond the obvious mutation implied by 'Reply.'

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 two sentences long and front-loads the core purpose and permission. The Chinese intent line adds multilingual searchability without excessive bloat, and every sentence earns its place.

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?

No output schema or annotations exist, and the description covers the essential action and permission, but it omits return format, error conditions, and confirmation behavior. The tool is simple enough that this is acceptable, but there is room for a note about successful response or thread behavior.

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% for all 5 parameters, so the schema already documents each field. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level context beyond the schema, placing it at the baseline 3.

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: 'Reply to a Teams channel message as the signed-in user.' It specifies a precise verb (reply) and resource (channel message), distinguishing it from siblings like teams_send_channel_message (send new) and teams_list_channel_message_replies (list replies).

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?

Usage context is implied by the word 'Reply' and the resource type, but the description does not explicitly contrast this with alternatives like teams_send_channel_message or provide when-not-to-use guidance. The permission requirement 'Requires delegated ChannelMessage.Send' adds context but no explicit win/loss criteria.

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