Edit an SMSF return field

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

The description discloses key behaviors: rejection of calculated/readonly fields, automatic recomputation of totals, and blank value reverting to ledger-derived figure. Annotations only indicate non-readonly and non-destructive, so the description adds significant behavioral context.

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: three sentences that front-load the purpose, then detail behavioral traits. 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?

Given the complexity (5 params, no output schema), the description sufficiently explains the tool's behavior, constraints, and return value. Schema covers parameter details well, so the description completes the picture.

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 is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions, though it reinforces the behavior of the 'value' parameter (blank reverts). No significant additional semantic value.

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 it overrides a single field on the return, with specific examples like income and deduction amounts. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools such as get_smsf_return and create_smsf_return by focusing on modifying an existing field.

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 implies usage for individual field overrides but does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives. However, it provides clear context about the safe write path and automatic recomputation.

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