ciso_assistant_api_metrology_metric_definitions_batch_action_createApply a batch action to multiple metrology metric definitions in CISO Assistant to update or manage them together.
Perform a batch action on multiple objects.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds no context beyond that: it does not say which action verbs are supported, whether the operation is all-or-nothing, or what happens to objects that fail mid-batch. For a non-idempotent bulk mutation with zero annotations-level detail, this is a substantive gap.
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 its brevity comes from under-specification rather than efficiency — it conveys no information an agent could not infer from the tool name. Nothing is front-loaded because there is nothing to front-load.
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 non-idempotent, open-world bulk mutation with no parameters, no output schema, and no description of the action model leaves an agent unable to call it correctly at all. The annotations carry a partial safety profile, but the operational semantics are entirely absent.
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?
Parameter count is 0, so the baseline is 4, but the empty schema is itself suspicious for a batch tool that must receive target objects and an action. The description does nothing to explain this gap or how targets/actions are conveyed, so it falls below baseline.
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 restates the operation type ('batch action') in generic terms without naming the resource it operates on, even though the tool is scoped to metrology metric definitions. It is indistinguishable from dozens of sibling *_batch_action_create tools apart from the tool name itself.
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 the plain create/update/destroy siblings, no mention of what a 'batch action' entails (bulk delete, bulk update, apply a status change), and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent has nothing to route on.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.