Send Channel Message

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so 'send' is consistent. The description adds no further behavioral context beyond the fact that it sends a message—does not mention side effects like message visibility, notifications, permission requirements, or rate limits. With the low bar set by annotations, it meets the minimum but adds little.

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 two sentences with no filler: it front-loads the action and resource, then lists the key capabilities. Every clause earns its place, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

With 11 parameters and no output schema, the description is somewhat sparse. It captures the core purpose and main formatting features but omits image attachment support, parameter relationships (e.g., imageUrl vs imageData), and guidance on obtaining teamId/channelId. The 100% schema coverage compensates partly, but the description alone is not fully complete for a tool with this many optional features.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'text and markdown formatting, mentions, and importance levels' maps to the format, mentions, and importance parameters, but adds no new meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions. It does not cover image attachment parameters or tenantId semantics, so it barely exceeds the baseline.

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 a message to a specific channel in a Microsoft Team,' which clearly indicates the action. It also lists supported features (text/markdown, mentions, importance) but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like send_chat_message or reply_to_channel_message, though 'channel' vs 'chat' is implicit.

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 usage is implied: if you need to send a message to a channel, this tool fits. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it (e.g., for replying, use reply_to_channel_message; for chats, use send_chat_message). The sibling list is rich, but the description does not route the agent to alternatives, leaving the choice to inference.

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