ciso_assistant_api_evidences_updateUpdate evidence records in CISO Assistant by ID, including associated body data, to keep compliance evidence current and accurate.
API endpoint that allows evidences 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=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no word on permissions, whether omission of fields clears them, or validation behavior — and its 'viewed or edited' phrasing is misleading for a pure mutation endpoint.
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, so there is no padding, but it is boilerplate that carries no actionable content and does not front-load the update semantics.
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 mutation endpoint with an undocumented free-form body, no output schema, and a large sibling set including partial_update, the definition leaves out everything an agent would need: required payload shape, replace-vs-merge semantics, and error conditions.
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 body parameter is an opaque free-form object; the description must compensate but provides zero information about what fields the evidence body accepts or how id is interpreted.
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 generic Django REST boilerplate: 'allows evidences to be viewed or edited' — but the tool is specifically an update endpoint, and there is a separate sibling ciso_assistant_api_evidences_partial_update. It gives no verb/resource distinction an agent could use to choose between full update, partial update, or retrieve.
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 call this rather than evidences_partial_update, evidences_retrieve, or evidences_object_retrieve, and no mention that it requires an id and is a full/put-style update in a family that also has a PATCH variant.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.