ciso_assistant_api_folders_destroyDeletes a folder by ID through the CISO Assistant API so you can remove obsolete or unwanted folders from the GRC workspace.
API endpoint that allows folders to be viewed or edited.
| 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 on a delete endpoint, but the description calls it a view/edit endpoint. That directly contradicts the declared destructive behavior and leaves the agent unaware that this operation permanently removes a folder.
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?
The single sentence is short, but it wastes that space on incorrect boilerplate rather than front-loading the destructive purpose and the required id. Brevity without accuracy does not earn credit.
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, open-world delete operation with no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description should warn about irreversibility and identify what is being removed. It provides none of that and instead mischaracterizes the tool.
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, so the description must compensate, but it adds nothing about what the id identifies, format, or whether it is the folder's numeric or UUID identifier.
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 says the endpoint allows folders to be 'viewed or edited', which does not state the delete/destroy operation promised by the tool name. It is generic boilerplate that fails to name the actual verb (deletion) and is actively misleading about what the endpoint does.
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 siblings like folders_update, folders_partial_update, or folders_list. There is no mention of preconditions, alternatives, or the caution warranted before removing a folder.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.