ciso_assistant_api_pmbok_projects_batch_action_createApply a batch action to multiple PMBOK project records at once to update several selected projects in one request.
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 readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false and openWorld=true, but the description adds nothing about what the 'action' actually does, whether idempotency matters for repeated calls, or what a caller should do with the empty payload. For a mutation endpoint, this leaves the agent guessing about effects and side effects.
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 with no filler, which is structurally clean, but its brevity comes from omission rather than economy. It is under-specified rather than concise.
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 an empty input schema mean the description must carry the full explanatory burden, yet it says nothing about accepted actions, expected identifiers, or the response. An agent cannot reliably call this tool from the definition alone.
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 input schema declares zero properties, so per baseline there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. That said, a batch-action endpoint with an entirely empty schema is itself surprising, and the description does nothing to explain how object ids or an action name are conveyed.
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 sentence 'Perform a batch action on multiple objects' restates the name's 'batch action' and adds only 'multiple objects'. It never names the resource (PMBOK projects) nor which batch actions exist (update/delete/assign?), so it does not distinguish this from the dozens of other *_batch_action_create siblings.
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 statement of when to use this instead of ciso_assistant_api_pmbok_projects_partial_update or the single-object update tools, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent must infer everything from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.