ciso_assistant_api_applied_controls_batch_action_createApply a batch action to multiple applied controls at once through the CISO Assistant API, enabling grouped updates or status changes.
Perform a batch action on multiple objects.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.3.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds nothing on top: it does not say which batch actions exist, what permissions or payload are required, whether the operation is atomic or partial, or what happens on failure. For a mutation endpoint this is a real gap.
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 no filler, so nothing needs trimming, but it is under-specified rather than concise. The one clause it does have is front-loaded and readable.
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?
A non-idempotent mutation tool with no output schema, an empty parameter schema, and dozens of near-identically named batch siblings demands far more than one generic sentence. The description leaves the agent unable to determine the request shape or the effect of the call.
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?
The schema declares zero properties with additionalProperties=false, so there is no parameter documentation at all, and the description does not compensate by explaining how objects and the action are identified. A zero-parameter schema is the nominal baseline case, but here it is clearly a defect for a batch tool, which keeps this below 4.
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 sentence 'Perform a batch action on multiple objects' is near-boilerplate: it names no resource (the applied-controls domain is only in the tool name) and no concrete action (update, delete, duplicate, assign?). Every sibling *_batch_action_create tool in this API would carry the identical line, so an agent cannot tell this one apart from frameworks, assets, or incidents batch actions.
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 statement of when to use this bulk endpoint versus the per-object siblings (ciso_assistant_api_applied_controls_update, _partial_update, _destroy, _duplicate_create). 'Multiple objects' hints at bulk scope but provides no condition, prerequisite, or exclusion to guide selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.