ciso_assistant_api_requirement_assignments_destroyPermanently removes a requirement assignment by its ID, breaking the association between a compliance requirement and its assigned user or group.
API endpoint that allows requirement assignments 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 already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is technically available. However, the description actively works against them by framing the tool as a view/edit endpoint, and adds nothing about permanence, cascading effects on linked assessments, or required permissions for a delete.
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 short, but brevity here comes from being auto-generated filler rather than from front-loading meaningful content. The one sentence present conveys no actionable information.
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 endpoint with no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description should at minimum state that it deletes the identified assignment permanently. It omits that entirely, leaving the agent without the information needed 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?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the single required 'id' parameter is completely undocumented. The description does not say the id refers to a requirement-assignment record, nor its format, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap on the only input that matters.
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 requirement assignments to be 'viewed or edited', which is generic boilerplate and never states the actual operation implied by the name and route: deleting a requirement assignment. An agent reading only this text could mistake it for a read/update endpoint and never realize it is a destructive delete.
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, when-not-to-use, prerequisites, or alternatives are given. There is no hint that this should be selected only when a requirement assignment must be removed, nor any pointer to sibling tools such as requirement_assignments_partial_update or requirement_assignments_set_status_create for non-destructive changes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.