send_channel_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'send message' and mentions content_type values; it does not disclose side effects (e.g., message is posted and visible to all channel members), authorization requirements, or behavior for html content. This is minimal behavioral info for a mutating tool.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose. The content_type clarification earns its place. It loses a point because it is so sparse that it omits useful parameter context, but as a concise summary it works.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It covers the core action and content_type, but lacks guidance on prerequisites (e.g., being a member of the channel), how to obtain team_id/channel_id, and what the response looks like. An agent would need external knowledge to use it with full confidence.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for content_type ('text' or 'html'), which is helpful, but it does not explain team_id, channel_id, or content beyond their names, nor does it mention that content_type defaults to 'text' (visible in schema but not reinforced).

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Send message to a Teams channel.' This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like send_chat_message (for chats) and send_mail (for email), so the agent can identify the correct tool from the name and one-liner.

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 is implied but not explicit. The description tells the agent it is for Teams channels, which implies when to use it, but it does not mention alternatives or exclusions, such as 'use send_chat_message for 1:1/group chats' or any prerequisites like needing the team_id/channel_id from list_my_teams/list_channels.

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