m365_teams_send

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

The description adds no behavioral details beyond the annotations. Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description does not mention any side effects, auth needs, rate limits, or that the message is delivered asynchronously. The agent is left unaware of any potential failure modes or response expectations.

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 with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for a simple send operation, gets directly to the point, and is 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 simple 2-parameter send operation, the description is minimally viable but lacks context on how to obtain chatId, expected return values, and potential errors. Without an output schema, the agent needs some hint about what the tool returns, which is missing. The annotations provide some safety context, but the description itself is incomplete.

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 coverage is 100% with both chatId and message provided descriptions. The description does not add any semantic meaning beyond the schema, so it adds no value for parameter understanding. The baseline of 3 applies due to full coverage in the schema.

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 'Send a message to a Teams chat' clearly identifies the action (send) and the resource (Teams chat), making it easy to distinguish from mail-related tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling team tools like m365_teams_messages, and it could more clearly state that it targets an existing chat identified by chatId.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention that chatId should be obtained from m365_teams_chats. It does not state exclusions or alternative tools, so the agent gets no context for choosing this over other send operations.

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