send_chat_message

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: Markdown/HTML render literally, newlines are kept, URLs become links, mentions are silently dropped if '@<name>' does not match, and team tags cannot be mentioned in chats. These failure modes and rendering behaviors are exactly what an agent needs before calling.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then organized into prerequisite lookups, content semantics, and mentions. Every line earns its place, though the multi-block layout is slightly denser than a single tight paragraph would be.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the description covers all inputs, required lookups, mention syntax, and rendering/error behavior. Nothing needed to invoke this correctly is missing.

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 0% and all four parameters are documented in prose: chat_id source, content text semantics, reply_to as an optional quoted-reply message ID, and mentions as a JSON array with the exact shape [{"user_id":..., "name":...}] plus where the '@DisplayName' token goes in content. Fully compensates for the empty 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?

States a specific verb and resource (send a message to a Teams chat), which is enough to separate it from send_channel_message and reply_to_channel_message by the chat/channel distinction. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the resource noun does the discriminating work.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to list_chats for chat_id, list_chat_messages for reply_to's message_id, and list_chat_members/get_user for mention user_ids. Prerequisite lookups are well covered, though there is no statement of when not to use this tool (e.g. channels vs chats) beyond the resource name.

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