ciso_assistant_api_resilience_escalation_thresholds_batch_action_createApply a batch action to multiple resilience escalation thresholds at once to update escalation criteria across several objects.
Perform a batch action on multiple objects.
| 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?
Annotations already state readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the description's silence on mutation/reversibility is partly compensated. However, for a batch mutation the description says nothing about what the action does, whether it is reversible, or what the caller must supply — and it does not contradict annotations.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler, but its brevity comes from omission rather than efficiency; the sentence conveys almost nothing beyond the name.
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 non-idempotent, open-world batch mutation with an empty input schema and no output schema, the description provides none of the context an agent needs: no object type, no action set, no payload shape, no return behavior.
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 schema has zero properties, which for a 'batch action on multiple objects' is itself a red flag — there is no documented way to specify which objects or which action. The description does not compensate by explaining the expected payload (IDs, action verb), leaving the caller with no usage path.
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 restates the tool name generically: 'Perform a batch action on multiple objects.' It never names the resource (escalation thresholds) or any of the batch operations (delete/update/whatever), so it is indistinguishable from the hundreds of sibling *_batch_action_create tools.
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 indication of when to use this tool, what preconditions apply, or how it differs from the per-resource create/update/destroy siblings. An agent has no basis for choosing it over any other batch tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.