ciso_assistant_api_contracts_partial_updatePartially updates an existing contract through the CISO Assistant GRC API by applying only the supplied fields.
API endpoint that allows contracts to be viewed or edited.
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds nothing beyond that. Worse, "viewed or edited" blurs read and write semantics for an endpoint that is purely a mutation, and it says nothing about which fields are affected or whether omitted fields are preserved (the defining trait of a partial update).
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 and nothing to trim, but its brevity comes from under-specification rather than discipline. It is front-loaded only in the trivial sense of naming the resource first.
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 partial-update tool with an opaque free-form body parameter, no output schema, and zero schema documentation demands a real description. Given nothing about the payload shape, required permissions, or the effect of partial updates, the definition is inadequate for correct invocation.
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%: neither `id` nor `body` has any documentation, and `body` is a free-form object with additionalProperties. The description mentions "contracts" but gives no hint about what the body should contain, so it does not compensate for the coverage 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?
"API endpoint that allows contracts to be viewed or edited" restates the resource name and generically describes CRUD capability without identifying the operation. It never says this is a PATCH-style partial update, so the description does not distinguish it from contracts_update, contracts_retrieve, or contracts_list.
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 guidance on when to use this versus the many contract siblings. Nothing indicates that this performs a partial mutation, that full replacement should go to contracts_update, or that reads belong to contracts_retrieve.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.