ciso_assistant_api_chat_questionnaire_questions_batch_action_createCreate a batch action for multiple questionnaire questions in CISO Assistant, enabling bulk processing or updates of selected questions in one request.
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, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing on top: no statement of which actions modify vs delete, whether the call is transactional, what permissions are required, or what happens to objects not matched — all of which matter for a non-idempotent mutating batch endpoint.
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 it is not bloated — but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than economy. Nothing is front-loaded beyond a generic verb phrase.
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 non-idempotent, open-world mutating tool with an empty input schema and no output schema, the description supplies no action vocabulary, no payload shape, and no result expectations. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool from the definition.
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?
Parameter count is zero, which normally sets a baseline of 4, but the schema is an empty object with additionalProperties=false — the description was the only place to explain the expected batch payload (action plus ids) and instead only hints at 'multiple objects'. It therefore adds marginal meaning without compensating for the unusable schema.
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 'Perform a batch action on multiple objects' is generic boilerplate that could describe any of the dozens of sibling *_batch_action_create tools. It never names the resource (chat questionnaire questions) and never states which batch actions are supported, so an agent must fall back entirely on the tool name.
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?
No when-to-use context, no prerequisites, no exclusions, and no mention of the sibling tools (e.g. _questions_partial_update/_destroy or the questionnaire_runs batch action) that would be the alternative for single-object or different-resource operations. The agent is left to infer applicability from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.