Unlodge financial year

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

Annotations indicate the tool is not read-only and not destructive. The description adds context by stating it reverts the state to closed and keeps an audit note. This goes beyond the annotations, though it does not detail all side effects.

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 a single sentence covering purpose, context, and constraint. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 simple mutation tool with three parameters fully described in the schema, the description covers purpose, constraint, and a side effect (audit note). However, it does not describe the output or success behavior, which is a minor gap given no output schema.

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?

All three parameters are described in the input schema with 100% coverage. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides for the 'note' parameter (audit note). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 reverts a lodged financial year back to closed, with a specific use case (ATO amendment) and a constraint (only works on a lodged year). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like lodge_financial_year and close_financial_year.

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 provides a clear condition for use ('Only works on a lodged year') and a typical scenario ('e.g. for an ATO amendment'). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or contrast with alternative tools, though the condition implicitly guides the agent.

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