ciso_assistant_api_requirement_assignments_cascade_info_retrievePreview the cascade impact of a requirement assignment before applying changes, showing which related items would be affected.
Cascade preview:
| 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 already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only the word 'preview', which hints that the call computes an effect without applying it — but it does not say what is modeled (deletions, reassignments, orphaned objects) or whether the preview depends on current state.
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?
Two words with a trailing colon is not a description; this is under-specification rather than conciseness. Nothing is front-loaded because nothing substantive is stated.
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?
No output schema exists and the description does not explain what the preview returns (affected objects, counts, conflicts) or how the id scopes the result. For an open-world preview endpoint with an undocumented parameter, the description leaves every decision an agent must make unresolved.
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 parameter is a bare 'id' string with no type detail, no mention of which model's id it is (requirement assignment? assessment?). The description provides no compensating explanation, so an agent must guess whether to pass an assignment id, a requirement id, or an object reference.
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 'Cascade preview:' names an action but not the resource — it never says what is being previewed (requirement assignments, deletion cascades, dependency graphs). The only specificity comes from the tool name, and the description is effectively a restatement of the 'cascade_info_retrieve' suffix. An agent cannot tell from the text what object this previews or what it returns.
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 at all. There is no mention of the sibling requirement_assignments_destroy or any other cascade_info / retrieve tool that might be the alternative, and no precondition such as 'call before a destructive operation'. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.