obsidian_list_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic operation and a prerequisite, but does not disclose how old_items and new_items are mapped (e.g., replacement semantics), error handling when old_items are not found, or whether the modification is irreversible. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 extremely concise, with the main action in the first sentence and usage guidance in the second. It is front-loaded, free of filler, and each sentence earns its place.

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 relatively simple 3-parameter tool, the description covers the core purpose, when to use it, and a useful prerequisite. The output schema likely documents return values, so that omission is acceptable. However, it lacks explicit parameter semantics and edge-case behavior, making it not fully complete.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It implies list_name is the list identifier and old_items/new_items correspond to existing and desired items, respectively. However, it does not explicitly describe each parameter or their expected format (e.g., full list vs. partial), providing only minimal clarity.

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 tool updates list items in an Obsidian list, with a specific verb ('update') and resource ('list items'). It also notes the scope ('configured default vault') and differentiates from sibling tools like obsidian_list_add and obsidian_list_remove by focusing on changing existing items.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool: 'Use when the user asks to rename/change existing list items.' It also provides a concrete instruction to call obsidian_list_lists first if there is doubt about the exact list name, which is clear guidance for selection and prerequisite usage.

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