Api task templates update

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, i.e. a mutating, non-destructive, idempotent write. The description instead characterizes the tool as an export mixin, implying a read/export operation, which contradicts the annotations. No mention of what gets modified, required permissions, or success 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?

The single sentence is short, but its content is boilerplate that does not earn its place; brevity is worthless when the stated subject is the wrong resource and the wrong operation.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, an opaque body parameter, and only 2 undocumented parameters, the description should at minimum name the resource, the operation, and the payload shape. It does none of these and is actively misleading.

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 explain the two parameters (id and body), but it explains neither. The body is a free-form object with additionalProperties true and no documentation anywhere; an agent has no way to know what fields are valid.

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 never mentions task templates or updating; it describes a 'Generic export mixin for CSV/XLSX exports', which is a leaked implementation docstring rather than the tool's purpose. An agent cannot tell from this that the tool mutates an existing task template, and it reads as an export/read tool, directly conflicting with the name suffix _update.

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?

No indication of when to use this tool versus siblings such as task_templates_partial_update, task_templates_create, or task_templates_export_csv_retrieve. The only usage hint is the erroneous 'CSV/XLSX exports', which would actively steer the agent to the wrong sibling.

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