ciso_assistant_api_representatives_destroyDelete a representative by ID through the CISO Assistant GRC API to remove outdated or incorrect stakeholder records.
API endpoint that allows representatives 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?
The description frames the endpoint as 'viewed or edited' while annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The irreversible-deletion behavior and its consequences (cascading removal of a representative record) are never disclosed; the description actively points the agent away from the real behavior.
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 sentence, so it is not bloated, but its content is boilerplate API-framework text rather than a front-loaded statement of the operation. Concise yet uninformative.
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 only one identifier and no output schema, the description should state what is deleted and any irreversibility. Instead it supplies the wrong operation entirely, leaving the agent unable to call it 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?
There is one required parameter 'id' with 0% schema description coverage, and the description adds no meaning about it (e.g., that it is the representative's primary key of a record that will be permanently removed). The description does not compensate for the coverage 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 representatives to be 'viewed or edited', which is a generic CRUD-template sentence and omits the actual operation (deletion) that the name 'destroy' and the HTTP semantics imply. It does not distinguish this from the sibling retrieve/update tools.
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 whatsoever on when to use this tool versus ciso_assistant_api_representatives_retrieve, _update, or _partial_update. An agent has nothing to route on except the name suffix.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.