ciso_assistant_api_compliance_assessments_update_requirement_createCreates or updates a requirement in a compliance assessment by ID so you can record criteria and track compliance status via the API.
API endpoint that allows compliance assessments to be viewed or edited.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.3.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide the key behavioral hints (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false), and the description adds almost nothing beyond a generic 'viewed or edited' phrase. It does not disclose what is actually created or updated, required permissions, or any side effects.
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?
The single sentence is short, but it is a generic template phrase that does not front-load the specific action or resource. It is concise only because it omits all useful information.
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?
Given a write operation with a required id, no output schema, and a complex name suggesting requirement creation, the description is completely inadequate. It provides no context about what the tool actually does or what an agent needs in order to invoke it correctly.
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 single required parameter 'id' has 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about what the id identifies or how it is used. The description completely fails to compensate for the schema gap.
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 that it is an API endpoint for viewing or editing compliance assessments, which is vague and does not match the tool name's specific 'update requirement create' action. It fails to distinguish this tool from the many sibling compliance-assessment endpoints.
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 use it, or which alternatives exist. The agent is left to infer everything from the tool name and schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.