ciso_assistant_api_policies_updateUpdate an existing policy record through the API so you can revise details and keep compliance documentation accurate.
API endpoint that allows applied controls 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 state readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond a generic 'viewed or edited' phrase, and it does not clarify the actual policy-update behavior or any 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?
The description is only one sentence, but it is a misdirected generic template rather than a useful front-loaded statement. Brevity does not help when the sentence describes the wrong resource and action.
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?
Given a two-parameter update tool with no output schema, the description should at least identify that it updates policies and what the body represents. Instead it refers to applied controls and provides no context sufficient to invoke the tool correctly.
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 description does not explain either parameter. It says nothing about the required 'id' or the optional 'body' object, so it fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
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 tool name and title identify a policy update operation, but the description says it allows applied controls to be viewed or edited. That is not merely vague; it points to the wrong resource and mixes read/edit behavior, so an agent cannot reliably tell what this tool actually 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?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool, when not to use it, or how it differs from the many sibling update tools. Its only clause describes viewing/editing applied controls, which does not help select a policies update endpoint.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.