ciso_assistant_api_requirement_nodes_destroyDelete a requirement node by ID in CISO Assistant to remove obsolete or incorrect compliance requirements from your GRC framework.
API endpoint that allows requirements 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, and openWorldHint=true, yet the description claims the endpoint allows requirements to be 'viewed or edited' — the opposite of a destructive delete. It also omits irreversibility, cascading effects, and permission requirements. This is an annotation contradiction.
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?
The description is short, but the single sentence conveys incorrect information about the operation, so its brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficiency. Nothing meaningful is front-loaded.
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?
A destructive mutation with no output schema, no annotations explaining consequences, and no description of what gets deleted or how related requirement assessments are affected. An agent has essentially no basis to call this 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?
The single required 'id' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate but adds nothing — no indication of whether the id is a UUID, integer, or reference path, nor what happens if the id is unknown.
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 names the resource (requirements) but assigns the wrong operation: 'viewed or edited' for a tool whose name and annotations indicate deletion. An agent reading only the description would not learn that this removes a requirement node, making the stated purpose misleading rather than merely vague.
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 rather than the sibling partial_update, update, batch_action_create, or retrieve tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, permanence, or the conditions under which deletion is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.