ciso_assistant_api_privacy_data_breaches_updateUpdate a privacy data breach record by ID in CISO Assistant, enabling breach details to be edited through the API.
API endpoint that allows data breaches 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, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds nothing beyond that — it doesn't say it is a full update vs. a patch, what fields it overwrites, or whether omitted fields are cleared or reset.
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?
It is a single short sentence, so size is not the problem, but the phrase 'viewed or edited' is actively confusing rather than load-bearing. The statement is front-loaded but under-specified for its length.
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?
This is a mutating endpoint with an opaque free-form body, no output schema, and a required id — the description should at minimum explain that it replaces an existing breach record and what the body represents. Instead it only restates the endpoint name.
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 there are two parameters: `id` (required, plain string) and `body` (untyped arbitrary object defaulting to null). The description says nothing about either, leaving the agent with no idea what the body should contain for a data-breach record.
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 names the resource (data breaches) but describes the operation as 'viewed or edited', which conflates reading with writing and does not distinguish this update endpoint from siblings like ciso_assistant_api_privacy_data_breaches_retrieve, _partial_update, and _update. The verb is ambiguous rather than specific.
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 instead of _partial_update, _update, _retrieve, or _create. The agent gets no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions to choose between the many near-identical data-breach endpoints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.