Send Teams Channel Message

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds two valuable traits beyond the schema: it sends 'as the signed-in user' (identity context) and it requires delegated permission. It does not disclose error behaviors or rate limits, but for a simple send operation this is sufficient; it avoids hiding any destructive or surprising behavior.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus localized intent aliases. The main action is front-loaded in the first sentence, the permission requirement is in the second, and the Chinese phrases are a compact list. There is no redundant information 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?

The tool is relatively simple (4 parameters, no output schema, no nested objects). The description covers the essential context: what it does, who it acts as, and the required permission. It does not explain return values (not needed without output schema) and does not discuss failure conditions, but given the simplicity, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, with all four parameters (teamId, channelId, content, contentIsHtml) already having clear descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not add any extra meaning to the parameters, so it meets the baseline of 3 without exceeding it.

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: 'Send a message to a Teams channel as the signed-in user.' The verb 'send' combined with the resource 'Teams channel' precisely matches the tool name and distinguishes it from sibling tools like teams_send_chat_message (for chats) and teams_reply_channel_message (for replies). The inclusion of Chinese intent aliases also reinforces the purpose.

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 provides context by noting it acts as the signed-in user and requires delegated ChannelMessage.Send permission, which informs when it can be used. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use teams_send_chat_message for direct chats' or 'use teams_reply_channel_message for replies'), so it stops short of full alternatives guidance.

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