obsidian_update_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It states that properties are updated and returns a success/error message, but it does not explain behavior if the task is not found, if multiple tasks match 'task_description_contains', or if some properties are omitted. The mutation is implied but side effects are not clarified.

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 concise, using a standard docstring format with 'Args:' and 'Returns:' sections. It is front-loaded with the purpose and lists parameters briefly. Every sentence is relevant, though some details (like exact return structure) are omitted.

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?

With 6 parameters (3 required), no schema descriptions, and an output schema present but not explained, the description is incomplete. It does not specify what happens if 'task_description_contains' matches multiple tasks, or whether updates are atomic. The return value is vaguely described as 'Success message or error', lacking details on error conditions.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must provide meaning. It lists parameters and adds semantic constraints: for 'new_due_date' it specifies format 'YYYY-MM-DD' and 'remove' to clear; for 'new_priority' it enumerates allowed values. However, it does not explain 'vault', 'path', or 'task_description_contains' beyond their names, leaving ambiguity.

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 'Update a task's properties,' which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'obsidian_complete_task' or 'obsidian_delete_task' by implying modification rather than completion or deletion. However, it could be more explicit about which type of tasks it updates (e.g., only existing tasks).

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'obsidian_complete_task' or 'obsidian_uncomplete_task'. The description does not mention prerequisites, such as requiring the task to exist, or when to prefer this over other task-related tools.

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