ciso_assistant_api_risk_assessments_partial_updateUpdate selected fields of a CISO Assistant risk assessment by ID, letting you edit risk assessment data without replacing the full record.
API endpoint that allows risk assessments to be viewed or edited.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| body | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.3.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so partial-update semantics should be explained there. The description adds nothing about partial-vs-full semantics, whether omitted fields are preserved, permission requirements, or what a null/empty body does — the one thing that matters for a PATCH endpoint.
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 one short sentence, but it is boilerplate that conveys no usable information. Brevity here comes from under-specification rather than from disciplined editing.
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 mutation endpoint with an opaque free-form body, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage requires the description to carry the entire burden — field list, partial-update semantics, and permissions. None of that is present.
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 description adds no parameter information at all. The `body` parameter is an untyped open object (additionalProperties: true) with default null, so without any documentation the agent has no way to know which risk-assessment fields are patchable.
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 sentence is the stock DRF docstring restating the endpoint name: "risk assessments" plus "viewed or edited." It never distinguishes this PATCH tool from the many siblings (risk_assessments_update, risk_assessments_retrieve, risk_assessments_list) and the phrase "viewed or edited" actively muddies what the tool actually does.
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 on when to use this versus risk_assessments_update (full replacement) or risk_assessments_retrieve (read). The single sentence provides no trigger condition, prerequisites, or exclusion, leaving the agent to infer everything from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.