Delete a cashbook entry by ID to remove receipts or payments from a company's accounting records.
Elimina un movimento di prima nota (incassi e pagamenti).
| 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?
destructiveHint=true already tells the agent this is a destructive write, so the description only adds the identity of the deleted object. It says nothing about irreversibility, whether a deleted entry can be recovered (notably sibling tools recover_document and list_deleted_documents exist), or whether dependent records are affected.
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?
A single short sentence with zero filler, front-loading the action and resource. It is efficient, though the brevity is a symptom of under-specification rather than discipline.
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 destructive mutation with no output schema and an undocumented required identifier, the definition leaves too much unsaid: no confirmation semantics, no error behavior, no recoverability note. It is not complete enough for an agent to invoke safely without inspecting the schema and guessing.
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 50%: company_id is documented in the schema, but the required id parameter has only a type and integer bounds, with no meaning given in the schema and none added by the description. Whether id is the cashbook entry ID and what happens on an unknown id is left entirely implicit.
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 ("Elimina") and a specific resource ("movimento di prima nota"), and clarifies the domain as receipts and payments. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from update_cashbook_entry or delete_receipt, but the named resource is unambiguous enough to separate it from siblings.
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 delete versus update or void an entry, no preconditions, and no warning that the operation is irreversible. The agent must infer the entire usage context from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.