Send File to Chat

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

Annotations already flag non-read-only and non-idempotent behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful behavior: the file is uploaded to OneDrive and sent as a reference attachment. This goes beyond the schema and annotations, though it does not cover permissions or failure behavior.

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?

Two succinct sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and the file-type support and OneDrive behavior are presented efficiently.

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 the schema already documents all 7 parameters and the description covers purpose and mechanism, the definition is largely complete. There is no output schema, but the success outcome is implied by 'sent as a reference attachment'. It could mention response/confirmation but is not critically lacking.

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 adds general context about the file upload and reference attachment, but it does not add specific parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides for filePath, chatId, or optional fields.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pairing ('Upload a local file and send it as a message to a Teams chat') and clarifies the action as a reference attachment. It also distinguishes itself from sibling send_file_to_channel by explicitly targeting a chat rather than a channel.

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 clearly establishes the context: sending a file to a Teams chat. It also broadens applicability with 'Supports any file type (PDF, DOCX, ZIP, images, etc.)'. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to send_file_to_channel, but the chat-vs-channel distinction is strongly implied.

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