ciso_assistant_api_evidence_revisions_batch_action_createRun a batch action on multiple evidence revisions in one request to manage revisions together.
Perform a batch action on multiple objects.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.3.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=true, destructive=false, which is non-trivial information the description simply repeats in vaguer form ("perform a batch action"). It adds nothing about what a batch action does to the target revisions, whether it can remove them, or what side effects to expect.
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 with no filler, so nothing is wasted, but the terseness comes at the cost of meaning rather than from efficiency. It is under-specified rather than concise.
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 mutating batch endpoint with no usable parameter schema and no output schema needs the description to carry substantial weight, and this one does not. An agent has no way to know what the batch action operates on or what it returns.
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?
With zero declared parameters the baseline is 4, but the empty schema is itself a red flag for a batch mutation that logically needs a target list and an action name; the description does nothing to explain how objects or the action are specified. It neither contradicts nor compensates for the schema, so a middling score is warranted.
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 restates the name's generic component ("batch action") without naming the resource or the operation: it never says these are evidence revisions, nor which actions (delete/update/etc.) are supported. Against dozens of near-identical siblings named *_batch_action_create, an agent cannot distinguish this tool from any of them using the description.
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 guidance, no mention of alternatives (e.g. per-object update/destroy on evidence revisions), and no prerequisites such as permissions or the requirement to select target objects first. The agent is left to infer everything from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.