ciso_assistant_api_managed_documents_partial_updatePartially update a managed document in CISO Assistant by submitting only changed fields to the API, enabling targeted edits without replacing the full record.
API endpoint that allows managed documents 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, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing actionable and its 'viewed or edited' wording misleadingly implies a read capability for a write-only endpoint. No mention of patch semantics, required permissions, or effect on unreferenced fields.
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?
A single short sentence, so nothing is bloated, but the sentence is boilerplate that conveys no distinguishing information.
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 tool with 0% schema documentation, no output schema, and an opaque object payload, the description should explain PATCH behavior, what 'body' contains, and what a successful response returns. None of that is present.
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 description mentions no parameters. The 'body' parameter is a free-form nullable object whose structure is entirely undocumented anywhere, and the required 'id' is never mentioned or qualified (format/type).
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?
States the resource (managed documents) but the verb is generic 'viewed or edited', which does not identify this as a partial (PATCH) update. Against siblings like managed_documents_update, managed_documents_retrieve and managed_documents_list, an agent cannot tell what this endpoint uniquely 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 partial_update versus update (full replace) or retrieve; no prerequisites, no mention that only the supplied fields are modified. The agent must infer everything from the tool name suffix.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.