ciso_assistant_api_privacy_personal_data_partial_updatePartially update a privacy personal data record by ID, letting you edit selected fields without replacing the full entry.
API endpoint that allows personal data 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, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that and its 'viewed or edited' wording is misleading for a mutation endpoint, with no mention of partial-merge semantics or which fields are omitted versus nulled.
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 padding, but the brevity comes at the cost of substance, so it reads as under-specification rather than discipline. Nothing is front-loaded beyond the generic endpoint framing.
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 mutation tool with an opaque free-form body, no output schema, and no annotations covering payload shape — the description should explain what the body accepts, but offers no information at all. An agent cannot construct a correct call from this 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?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the body parameter is an untyped free-form object with additionalProperties=true, so the schema provides essentially no help. The description contributes nothing about the required id or what the body object must contain, leaving the caller to guess the payload shape.
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 resource ('personal data') but dilutes the operation to a generic 'viewed or edited', which does not identify this as the partial-update (PATCH) variant. It is indistinguishable from the sibling retrieve, update, and partial_update tools on this same resource without reading the tool name.
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 is given on when to use partial update instead of update, retrieve, or object_retrieve. The phrase 'viewed or edited' actively muddles whether this is a read or a write call, so an agent gets no routing signal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.