ciso_assistant_api_frameworks_destroyPermanently deletes a framework by its ID via the CISO Assistant API to remove outdated or incorrect framework records.
API endpoint that allows frameworks 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, but the description says the endpoint allows frameworks to be "viewed or edited" — a benign read/write framing that contradicts the declared destructive behavior. It omits permanence, cascade effects on linked requirement nodes/assessments, and permission requirements, all of which matter for an irreversible delete.
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 short sentence, but brevity here comes from under-specification rather than economy: the one sentence is boilerplate that conveys no tool-specific information, so no sentence earns its place.
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 mutation with no output schema and no annotations beyond the safety flags needs the description to say what is removed and what breaks downstream. Instead the description covers none of that and actively mislabels the operation as viewing/editing.
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 adds no meaning — no indication of what the identifier refers to (framework UUID vs. ref_id) or what happens when it is unknown. A one-param tool does not excuse total silence when the schema documents nothing.
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 generic DRF boilerplate: "allows frameworks to be viewed or edited." The resource (frameworks) is named, but the verb is wrong for this endpoint — the name and the title say destroy, yet the description describes viewing/editing, so an agent cannot tell it is a delete operation from the description alone.
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?
There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing. Across dozens of sibling frameworks_* tools (retrieve, list, update, duplicate, publish_draft, etc.), nothing tells the agent to pick destroy over partial_update or to check dependencies first.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.