ciso_assistant_api_loaded_libraries_batch_action_createExecute batch actions on multiple loaded library objects in CISO Assistant to update or process them together instead of one at a time.
Perform a batch action on multiple objects.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.3.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the basic safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say what the batch verb does (delete? update? archive?), whether it is transactional, or what happens on partial failure.
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, front-loaded sentence with no padding, but the brevity comes from under-specification rather than efficiency. There is no structure to speak of.
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 non-idempotent, open-world mutation endpoint with an opaque payload and no output schema, the definition leaves the agent without the action vocabulary or the body contract. It is not usable without external API documentation.
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?
The single `body` parameter is an untyped free-form object with 0% schema description coverage, and the description supplies zero information about its expected shape (action name, id list, field values). An agent has no way to construct a valid call.
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?
"Perform a batch action on multiple objects" restates the tool name and never says which objects (loaded libraries) or what the actions are. It cannot be distinguished from the dozens of sibling *_batch_action_create tools, which all use near-identical wording.
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 guidance on when to use this versus the single-object endpoints (loaded_libraries_create/update/destroy) or versus other batch tools. No prerequisites, no mention of which operation the batch performs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.