Send Teams Chat Message

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It adds the authenticated actor and permission requirement, which is useful. However, it does not disclose potential side effects beyond sending, such as whether the message is deliverable, failure modes, or behavior with HTML content. The description meets a baseline but does not add rich behavioral context.

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 followed by useful multilingual intent list. It is front-loaded with the core action, and every word contributes—no fluff or redundant restatement. The structure is easy to scan and parse.

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 simple send action with three well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: purpose, actor, and permission. It lacks a hint about prerequisites, such as the chat needing to exist (teams_list_chats or teams_create_chat), but the sibling list and parameter name (chatId) imply this. Slight gap in not explaining that the chat must already be available.

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 already covers all parameters with descriptions: chatId ('Chat ID'), content ('Message content'), contentIsHtml ('Whether the content is HTML. Defaults to false.'). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond these, so the schema carries the load. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 begins with a clear verb-action pair: 'Send a message to a Teams chat as the signed-in user.' This specifies the resource (Teams chat) and distinguishes it from channel messaging (e.g., teams_send_channel_message). Including the Chinese intent translations reinforces the core purpose without ambiguity.

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 clear context by stating the actor ('as the signed-in user') and the required permission ('Requires delegated ChatMessage.Send'). It does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or point to alternatives like teams_send_channel_message, but the 'chat' vs 'channel' distinction in sibling names is implicit. Lacks an explicit exclusion or alternative recommendation.

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