ciso_assistant_api_privacy_processings_batch_action_createApply a batch action to multiple privacy processing objects in CISO Assistant, enabling bulk updates or management 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 disclose readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the description's burden is to explain what a "batch action" actually does (which operations, what gets modified, partial-failure behavior). It says none of that, adding no context beyond the structured hints.
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, front-loaded sentence, so there is no padding — but brevity here comes from omission rather than efficiency. The one sentence carries almost no useful information.
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 non-idempotent, non-read-only mutation with an empty schema, no output schema, and no explicit behavioral notes leaves the agent unable to call it correctly. The description would need to specify the action payload and affected resource to be usable.
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 schema declares zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric; however this is a batch mutation that in practice must accept a body of object IDs and action, and the description does nothing to clarify what input the endpoint expects. Trimmed one point for that unexplained mismatch.
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?
"Perform a batch action on multiple objects" is essentially a restatement of the name suffix batch_action_create and never names the resource (privacy processings) or what actions are available. With dozens of nearly identical *_batch_action_create siblings, the description provides zero differentiation between them.
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 bulk endpoint versus single-record endpoints like privacy_processings_update or privacy_processings_destroy, nor on preconditions. The only implied usage is "multiple objects," which the agent can already infer from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.