ciso_assistant_api_chat_documents_updateUpdates an indexed document in CISO Assistant by ID using supplied body fields, keeping chat-retrieval content current.
ViewSet for managing indexed documents.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| body | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.3.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are contradicted, but the description adds no behavioral context whatsoever. It does not say what 'update' replaces (does the optional body overwrite the whole indexed document?), whether the document is re-indexed, what permissions are needed, or that OpenAI-style indexing happens server-side. For a mutation tool with openWorldHint=true, that is a serious omission.
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?
It is a single short sentence, so there is no bloat, but the sentence does not earn its place: it conveys no actionable information and is not front-loaded with the operation. This is under-specification rather than genuine conciseness.
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 endpoint with no output schema, 0% parameter documentation, and only generic annotations, the description should explain what gets updated and how. Instead it offers a boilerplate ViewSet label, so an agent cannot safely invoke it without guessing.
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 0%, so the description carries the full burden and provides nothing about the two parameters. It never mentions the required 'id' or the optional free-form 'body' object, leaving the meaning and expected structure of 'body' entirely unexplained.
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 says only 'ViewSet for managing indexed documents', which names the resource but never states the operation. The tool name and title indicate an update, yet the sentence could equally describe chat_documents_create, destroy, list, or retrieve. It is a generic framework docstring rather than a statement of what this tool does.
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 use this tool, when not to, or how it differs from ciso_assistant_api_chat_documents_partial_update, create, or destroy. An agent has to infer from the tool name alone that this is a full update of an existing indexed document. Nothing in the description routes the agent to the right sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.