Modify an existing list's name, color, icon, or folder assignment in Arca to keep workspace data current.
Update an existing list
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| icon | No | Icon name | |
| name | No | List name | |
| color | No | Color value | |
| list_id | Yes | The list ID | |
| folder_id | No | Folder ID (null to unassign) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only signals that the tool mutates a list, but it does not mention side effects, required permissions, whether unspecified fields are preserved, failure behavior, or what happens on invalid IDs.
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 brief, but the brevity is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It repeats the tool name and provides no useful front-loaded context, additional structure, or decision-relevant details.
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 annotations and no output schema, a single tautological sentence is insufficient. While the schema covers parameter names and types, the description does not explain behavioral outcomes, return values, or side effects, leaving an agent under-equipped to invoke the tool confidently.
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 all five parameters already have descriptive text in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.
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 'Update an existing list' restates the tool name 'update_list' with no additional information. 'Existing' is already implied by the verb 'update', and the description does not say what aspects of a list can be changed or how it differs from sibling update tools.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_list, delete_list, update_folder, or update_task. The phrase 'existing list' weakly implies it is not for creation, but no explicit context, exclusions, or alternatives are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.