ciso_assistant_api_document_attachments_destroyDelete a document attachment from CISO Assistant by its ID to remove outdated or unwanted files from compliance records.
API endpoint for serving document attachment files.
| 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 declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description frames the endpoint as 'serving' files, i.e. a read. It says nothing about permanent deletion, cascading effects on parent documents, or permissions. This is a direct contradiction of the structured safety profile.
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?
One short sentence, but it is not merely terse — it is actively wrong, so brevity provides no benefit here.
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 destructive, irreversible operation with an undocumented parameter and no output schema, the description omits everything an agent needs: that it deletes, what is removed, and what confirmation or permission is required.
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% for the single required 'id' parameter, and the description gives no indication of what the id refers to (attachment id? document id?) or its format. Minimal value added over the bare 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 names the resource (document attachment files) but uses the wrong verb: it says the endpoint is 'for serving' files, while the tool name and annotations indicate a destroy/delete operation. An agent reading only the description would conclude this is a download/retrieval endpoint.
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 sibling tools (e.g. document_attachments_retrieve, document_attachments_file_retrieve, document_attachments_update). No mention of prerequisites, irreversible deletion, or conflicts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.