ciso_assistant_api_reference_controls_destroyDeletes a reference control by ID through the CISO Assistant API, enabling removal of obsolete or incorrect control definitions.
API endpoint that allows reference controls 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, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, but the description frames the endpoint as one that 'views or edits' records. This directly understates a destructive deletion and gives no warning about irreversibility, cascading references, or permissions.
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 it is not bloated, but the sentence is generic boilerplate that conveys no actionable information about this operation. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than discipline.
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, single-parameter delete with no output schema and 0% parameter documentation, the description should state what is removed, whether it is reversible, and which id is required. None of that is present, and the only substantive content it does offer is inaccurate.
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 single required 'id' parameter is undocumented in both schema and description. The description never mentions that the identifier of the reference control to delete must be supplied, so nothing compensates for the schema gap.
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 reference controls to be viewed or edited', which is boilerplate and omits the operation the tool actually performs (deletion, per the name suffix 'destroy'). An agent reading only the description would not know this is a delete tool.
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 tool versus siblings such as reference_controls_retrieve, reference_controls_partial_update, or reference_controls_list. Nothing tells the agent this is the irreversible removal path.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.