ciso_assistant_api_privacy_data_contractors_destroyDelete a privacy data contractor by ID through the CISO Assistant API to remove outdated or incorrect contractor records from the GRC platform.
API endpoint that allows data contractors to be viewed or edited.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.3.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, yet the description describes the operation as 'viewed or edited', omitting that it permanently deletes a record and whether the deletion cascades to related processing activities. This contradicts the destructive annotation rather than supplementing it.
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 with no waste, but it is AutoSchema boilerplate that conveys no usable information for a destructive endpoint. Being short is not the same as being well-structured when the one sentence is wrong.
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 destructive, open-world, idempotent delete with no output schema, the description should explain what is removed, irreversibility, and any linked-object implications. None of that is present, so an agent has no basis to act safely.
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 single required parameter 'id' has 0% schema description coverage, and the description provides no clarification about what identifier is expected (UUID vs numeric string) or where to obtain it. At minimum it should state that the ID of the contractor record to delete is required.
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 says the endpoint 'allows data contractors to be viewed or edited', which restates a generic viewset label and never states that this tool deletes a data contractor. The name/title says 'destroy', but the prose describes read/update behavior, so an agent cannot confirm the actual purpose from the description.
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 tool, no prerequisites (e.g., required delete permission), and no mention of the sibling endpoints that should be used for viewing or editing instead. The 'viewed or edited' phrasing actively misdirects an agent toward non-destructive siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.