ciso_assistant_api_requirement_assessments_updatables_retrieveRetrieve requirement assessments available for update, enabling review and editing of compliance assessment records.
API endpoint that allows requirement assessments to be viewed or edited.
| 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?
The description says the endpoint allows records to be "edited", while annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false — a direct conflict about whether a write occurs. The annotations already cover safety and idempotency, so the description should have added what "updatables" returns and any permission scoping, but it adds nothing beyond the contradictory boilerplate.
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 with no padding or repetition, so it is structurally clean and front-loaded. However, it spends its only sentence on generic framework boilerplate rather than on the one piece of information (what "updatables" yields) that would earn its place.
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?
With no output schema and no parameters, the description is the only source of information about the response, yet it never says what the endpoint returns or how the result differs from the plain retrieve sibling. For a zero-parameter read endpoint named with an opaque qualifier, that omission leaves the agent unable to call it correctly.
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 tool takes zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter-level information is missing.
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?
"API endpoint that allows requirement assessments to be viewed or edited" restates the resource name but never explains what "updatables" means, which is the distinguishing part of the tool name. It is indistinguishable from siblings like requirement_assessments_retrieve, object_retrieve, list, or partial_update, so an agent cannot infer that this endpoint returns the set of update-permitted fields/objects.
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 when-to-use guidance is given, no alternatives are named, and no conditions or prerequisites are stated. The phrase "viewed or edited" vaguely gestures at both read and write use cases without indicating which situation selects this tool over the standard retrieve or update endpoints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.