ciso_assistant_api_ebios_rm_attack_paths_destroyDeletes an EBIOS RM attack path by its ID through the CISO Assistant API, removing outdated or incorrect attack path records from risk analysis.
api_ebios_rm_attack_paths_destroy
| 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 declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description adds nothing beyond that — no statement about what gets removed, whether dependent kill chains or operating modes are affected, or what a successful delete returns.
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?
It is a single token, so nothing is verbose, but that is under-specification rather than conciseness. There is no front-loaded verb phrase or scope statement to orient the agent.
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 destructive, open-world delete on a domain-specific EBIOS RM resource with an undocumented id and no output schema deserves at least a sentence on what is deleted and how to identify it. Annotations carry the safety profile, but the domain context is missing entirely.
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 single required parameter 'id' is a bare string. The description does not clarify that this is the attack path's identifier (versus a study id or ref_id), leaving the one parameter the agent must supply entirely unexplained.
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 is just the tool's snake_case name repeated verbatim, so the only semantic information comes from parsing the identifier itself ('destroy' + 'attack paths'). It does not state in prose that it deletes an EBIOS RM attack path, and it never distinguishes this from sibling destroy endpoints such as attack_paths_partial_update or feared_events_destroy.
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, when-not-to-use, or alternative is mentioned. An agent must infer entirely from the name that this is the deletion counterpart to attack_paths_create/attack_paths_update, with no guidance on prerequisites or irreversibility.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.