Deletes a balance account such as a bank, cash, or card account used to record receipts and payments.
Elimina un conto di saldo (banca, cassa, carta) su cui registrare 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?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds domain context — that the account is used to record receipts and payments — which hints at possible referential constraints, but it never says whether the deletion is permanent, blocked when transactions exist, or requires specific permissions.
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 the verb front-loaded and no filler. Nothing in it is redundant.
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 an undocumented required parameter and no output schema, the description should cover irreversibility, dependency handling, and the identifier to supply. None of that is present, so an agent could invoke it incorrectly.
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 only 50%: company_id is documented in the schema, but the required id parameter has no description anywhere. The description adds no meaning about which identifier is expected or how it is obtained, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.
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?
Description states a specific verb ("Elimina") and resource ("conto di saldo"), clarified with concrete examples (banca, cassa, carta), so an agent knows exactly what is removed. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling update_payment_account or list_payment_accounts, but the delete verb is unambiguous.
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?
There is no guidance on when to delete versus update or deactivate an account, and no preconditions are stated (e.g., whether an account with linked cashbook entries can be removed). The agent must infer the usage scenario entirely from the verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.