Moves an archived document to the trash by ID, allowing recovery later via recover_document; supports optional company selection.
Elimina un documento d'archivio. I documenti finiscono nel cestino e si recuperano con recover_document.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| company_id | No | Azienda su cui operare. Default: FIC_COMPANY_ID o l'unica azienda del token |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The destructiveHint=true annotation already flags this as a destructive operation, so the description's main added value is disclosing that deletion is soft ("finiscono nel cestino") and reversible via recover_document. That is genuinely useful context beyond the annotation, though it omits permission requirements, the company scoping behavior, and whether/when trash items are purged permanently.
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?
Two short sentences with zero waste; the action is front-loaded and the recovery consequence follows immediately. Every sentence earns its place.
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 two-parameter destructive tool with an annotation covering the safety profile, the description supplies the essential missing piece (soft delete plus recovery route). Remaining gaps, such as parameter roles and the permanent-purge timeline, are minor.
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 50%: company_id is documented in the schema but id is not, and the description says nothing about either parameter. It neither clarifies what id refers to (archive document identifier) nor explains the company_id default or scoping implications, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema.
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 states a specific verb and resource ("Elimina un documento d'archivio"), which lets an agent distinguish it from the many sibling deletes (delete_received_document, delete_issued_document, delete_receipt) by resource type. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so it is clear but not maximally differentiating.
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?
Usage is only implied: delete an archive document when you want it removed. The description does point to the recovery path ("si recuperano con recover_document"), which is a useful alternative reference, but it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance relative to update_archive_document or the other delete_* tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.