Reopens paid installments on a document to reverse a prior payment mark, restoring the document to unpaid status.
Riapre le rate saldate di un documento (annulla mark_paid).
| 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 description adds real behavioral meaning beyond the idempotentHint annotation by framing the call as the reversal of mark_paid, i.e., a state transition from paid to unpaid. It does not disclose side effects on related accounting data, e-invoice status, or required permissions for a mutation.
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 waste; the action is front-loaded and the sibling reference is placed compactly in parentheses.
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 mutation tool with no output schema and only idempotentHint in annotations, the definition is thin: it omits which document types are eligible, what happens to already-unpaid installments, and any side effects. It is adequate to identify the operation but not to invoke it confidently.
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 id is not. The phrase 'di un documento' implies id refers to the document whose installments are reopened, partially compensating for the gap, but no format or valid-value guidance is added.
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?
Names a specific verb and resource in Italian: 'Riapre le rate saldate di un documento' (reopens a document's paid installments), and identifies its inverse sibling mark_paid. An agent can tell what state change occurs and which tool it undoes, though 'un documento' does not specify issued vs received documents.
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 parenthetical 'annulla mark_paid' explicitly names the alternative and the condition that selects this tool over it. There is no explicit when-not guidance or prerequisite (e.g., the document must currently be marked paid), which keeps it below a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.