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

Annotations already flag this as a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent mutation, and the description adds the important operational context: a human confirmation gate, the set of task states that must not be completed, and the required post-success behavior of showing the updated formattedText list. It does not describe failure modes (e.g. what happens if the id is stale or the task was completed elsewhere), which keeps it just short of a 5.

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 core action is the first sentence, followed by a tight IMPORTANT block of constraints and a trailing routing note. Every line carries information; the bullet formatting costs a little density but improves scannability.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the definition covers origin of the id, eligibility constraints, confirmation prerequisite, and the expected follow-up output. Nothing critical to correct invocation is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline would be 3, but the description adds real meaning: task ids come from get_daily_tasks and look like 'ideas_lab_save_edit' or 'dyn_targets_2026-09-18'. social_set is left entirely to the schema, which handles it 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Mark ... as complete') narrowed to a scope ('today's SupaBird Daily Tasks'). The scope plus the explicit pointer to get_daily_tasks makes it distinguishable from the sibling that reads 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?

Gives explicit preconditions (only after user confirms, or after finishing with other tools), explicit exclusions (not locked, placeholder, or already-completed tasks), and an explicit alternative ('If the user asks what their tasks are, call get_daily_tasks first'). This is the when/when-not/alternative triad in full.

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