cigchat_flow_update_ai_task_provider

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the HTTP method and path, the required 'Manage Flow' scope, and the allowed provider values. However, it doesn't describe side effects (e.g., whether existing model/max_tokens are overwritten), reversibility, or return values. The scope requirement is useful context, but overall behavioral disclosure is limited.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the action, includes essential context (endpoint, scope, provider list) without fluff. Perfectly concise.

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?

The combination of description and schema covers the essentials: what it does, how to call it (endpoint), prerequisites (scope), and parameter descriptions. Missing explicit usage guidance and behavioral side effects, but for a simple update tool this is largely adequate. Slight gap because no output schema means return format isn't described, but that may be standard.

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% with descriptions for all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of valid ai_provider values duplicates the schema's enum-like description. It adds no new parameter semantics beyond confirming provider and model are updatable.

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 clearly states the action 'update Ai Task provider and model' with a specific resource (Ai Task). It also includes the endpoint and scope, making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling cigchat_flow_update_ai_agent_provider by the 'Ai Task' resource.

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 implies when to use (to update an AI task's provider/model) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as using cigchat_flow_update_ai_agent_provider for AI agents. The required scope is a precondition, not usage guidance. So usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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