ciso_assistant_api_contracts_updateUpdate a contract in CISO Assistant through the API by providing its ID and revised fields, enabling edits to existing contract records.
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, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds nothing beyond it. Critically, it does not explain that a full update replaces the contract record (so omitted fields may be cleared) nor what the free-form 'body' must contain, which is the key behavioral risk for a non-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, front-loaded sentence with no filler, so it is concise. But the brevity is under-specification rather than economy — every useful detail (update semantics, body contents) is absent.
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?
With no output schema, a free-form body object, 0% schema description coverage and a large family of near-identical sibling endpoints, the description needed to carry the update semantics and payload expectations. Instead it is a generic DRF stub, leaving an agent unable to call this correctly without trial and error.
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% and the description supplies no parameter meaning at all. The 'body' parameter is an unconstrained object with additionalProperties=true, so the agent has no way to learn which contract fields it should send; only the 'id' is self-evident from its name.
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 'API endpoint that allows contracts to be viewed or edited' is near-tautological boilerplate that does not state that this is a full-update (PUT-style) operation on a single contract. It fails to distinguish the tool from the many sibling contracts endpoints (contracts_partial_update, contracts_retrieve, contracts_list, contracts_update), and the 'viewed' wording points in the wrong direction for a write tool.
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 indication of when to use this versus contracts_partial_update (patch one or a few fields) or contracts_retrieve/object_retrieve (read). No prerequisites, no permission notes, no mention that the whole contract body must be supplied. The agent must infer the update-vs-partial-update choice entirely from the tool name suffix.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.