Updates an existing catalog product or service by passing only the fields to change, so price, detail, or status edits don't require resubmitting the full record.
Modifica un prodotto o servizio a listino: 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?
The single annotation (idempotentHint=true) already tells the agent repeated calls are safe, and the description's patch semantics are consistent with that. Beyond that it adds little: it does not say that unspecified fields are left untouched (only implied), nor how the tool behaves on invalid ids, permissions, or missing company scope. Not contradictory, but thin for a mutation tool.
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?
One short sentence with the action front-loaded and the key calling convention attached. Nothing is wasted, though the brevity borders on under-specification given the untyped data object.
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?
The tool mutates a nested, schema-free object (data allows arbitrary properties) and has no output schema and only one weak annotation, so the description carries most of the explanatory burden. It never lists the updatable fields or the response shape, leaving an agent unable to know what it can actually change.
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 33%: only company_id is documented, while id and the free-form data object are bare. The description partially compensates by establishing that data is a sparse patch of only changed fields, which is meaningful. It says nothing about which fields the data object accepts or what id refers to.
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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Modifica un prodotto o servizio a listino"), which clearly separates it from the create/get/delete/list product siblings implied by the verb. It stops short of naming those alternatives, but an agent can identify the operation type without opening the schema.
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" gives real guidance on how to invoke it (partial update rather than full replace), which is the main usage decision for this tool. There is no guidance on when to prefer it over siblings, no prerequisites, and no statement about what happens if the id does not exist.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.