ciso_assistant_api_risk_assessments_destroyDeletes a risk assessment by ID via the CISO Assistant REST API, enabling removal of outdated or incorrect assessment records.
API endpoint that allows risk assessments 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 idempotentHint=true, but the description claims the endpoint is for viewing or editing. This directly contradicts the destructive-delete behavior the agent must know about before calling.
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?
Short and front-loaded, but the single sentence is an auto-generated boilerplate string that conveys incorrect information rather than useful 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, non-idempotent-perception mutation with no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description must carry the safety burden. It does the opposite by framing a delete as a view/edit operation.
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?
One required parameter (id) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about it. The agent gets no signal that id identifies the specific risk assessment to delete.
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 (risk assessments) but gives the wrong operation: 'viewed or edited' when the tool is a destroy endpoint. An agent reading only the description would not know this deletes a risk assessment, which is the single most important fact.
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 versus the many sibling risk-assessment tools (retrieve, partial_update, duplicate, batch_action). No preconditions, no warnings, no mention that deletion is permanent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.