ciso_assistant_api_frameworks_partial_updatePartially update an existing framework in CISO Assistant by ID through the API, enabling targeted field edits without replacing the full record.
API endpoint that allows frameworks 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=false, openWorldHint=true, so safety context is partly carried. The description adds no behavior of its own: it does not state that this is a partial (PATCH) update, which fields are mutable, whether the record must exist, or whether the change is reversible — and it misleadingly includes "viewed".
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, but brevity here comes from under-specification rather than efficiency. Nothing is front-loaded beyond a generic purpose clause.
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?
No output schema and vague annotations mean the description must carry the load for a mutation tool, and it does not. An agent cannot determine from this text what a partial update accepts or 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?
Schema coverage is 0% and the body is an opaque free-form object, so the description must compensate and it does not. Neither `id` nor `body` is mentioned, and no field-level or format detail is supplied.
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?
"API endpoint that allows frameworks to be viewed or edited" is boilerplate that restates the resource without naming the operation. It never says this is a PATCH/partial update on a single framework by id, and it blurs viewing and editing on a tool whose annotations mark it non-read-only.
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 at all. With ~20 sibling framework tools (frameworks_update, frameworks_partial_update variants, frameworks_save_draft_partial_update, frameworks_retrieve, frameworks_object_retrieve) the description gives the agent nothing to choose between them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.