ciso_assistant_api_privacy_right_requests_destroyDeletes a privacy right request by ID, removing outdated or completed data subject requests from the GRC system.
API endpoint that allows right requests 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 and readOnlyHint=false, but the description frames the endpoint as one where records are 'viewed or edited,' giving no hint that a record is permanently removed. With annotations present, the description should at minimum confirm irreversibility; instead it suggests a non-destructive operation.
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 one short sentence, but brevity does not help because the sentence conveys the wrong operation. There is no front-loaded statement of the destructive 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?
For a destructive, non-idempotent-looking delete with no output schema and an undocumented id, the description supplies nothing an agent needs: not the target resource, not the effect, not error behavior.
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 'id' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, and the description adds nothing about it – not whether it is the right-request UUID, its format, or what happens if the id does not exist. This is a case where the description must compensate and does not.
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 right requests to be viewed or edited,' which describes read/update behavior rather than the deletion this tool actually performs. It restates generic DRF boilerplate and never states that a privacy right request is deleted by id.
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 indication of when to use this versus the many sibling right-request endpoints (retrieve, list, object_retrieve, update, partial_update, batch_action_create, cascade_info_retrieve). The agent gets no signal about when deletion is appropriate or what prerequisite state is needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.