ciso_assistant_api_resilience_business_impact_analysis_destroyDeletes a resilience business impact analysis record by ID, enabling cleanup of outdated BIA entries in the GRC platform.
api_resilience_business_impact_analysis_destroy
| 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 state destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: no mention of cascading deletions, irreversibility, required permissions, or impact on related assessments.
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 text is a bare slug with no sentences, no front-loaded purpose statement, and no structure. It is short, but shortness here reflects under-specification rather than conciseness.
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, open-world mutation with an undocumented identifier and no output schema, the description supplies nothing an agent needs to call it safely. Annotations carry the entire burden of behavioral disclosure.
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 and the description adds no clarification of what entity the id refers to or its format. With one undocumented parameter and no compensating prose, this falls below the baseline.
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 is only the operation slug repeated verbatim, which merely restates the tool name. It does tell an agent that this is a deletion operation only via the word 'destroy', with no statement of what resource is being removed or what 'business impact analysis' means in this context.
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 is given on when to delete versus when to use the sibling update, partial_update, retrieve, or list tools. The agent must infer entirely from the name that this is a destructive operation on an existing record.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.