Modify an existing F24 tax form model by supplying only the fields to change, enabling partial edits without resending the complete record.
Modifica un modello F24: passa solo i campi da cambiare.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| data | 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 supply only idempotentHint=true, so the description carries most of the burden. It usefully implies patch-style merge semantics (omitted fields stay untouched), which is real behavioral context beyond the annotation, but it says nothing about required permissions, what happens on an invalid field name inside data, or whether the operation is reversible.
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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed immediately by the operative constraint. Nothing is wasted and the key instruction is impossible to miss.
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 a nested, unconstrained data object, no output schema and only one annotated parameter, the description is too thin. An agent still cannot tell which F24 fields are updatable, whether nested values are merged or replaced, or what a successful response contains.
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 33%: company_id is documented in the schema while id and the free-form nested data object (additionalProperties: {}) are opaque. The description compensates for the most important gap by establishing that data need only contain the changed fields, but it never says which F24 fields are valid keys or what the id must reference.
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?
"Modifica un modello F24" states a specific verb (modify) and a specific resource (F24 model), which cleanly separates it from the create_f24, get_f24, delete_f24 and list_f24 siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings or the scope of a modification, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.
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?
"passa solo i campi da cambiare" is a genuine calling instruction: it tells the agent to send a partial payload rather than a full replacement. There is, however, no guidance on when to prefer update_f24 over create_f24 or duplicate/transform flows, and no prerequisites or failure conditions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.