ciso_assistant_api_risk_matrices_create_draft_createCreate a new unpublished risk matrix with an editable draft for visual editing. Use it to start building a risk matrix before publishing.
Create a new unpublished RiskMatrix with an editing_draft for the visual editor.
| 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 declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world create. The description usefully adds that the created matrix is unpublished and comes with an editing_draft, but it does not discuss permissions, side effects, or what happens to the draft afterward.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every clause contributes to identifying the operation and its resulting object state.
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 zero-parameter create tool with annotations covering safety and mutability, the description gives enough context to understand the operation. It could be slightly richer by clarifying how this draft differs from an existing-matrix draft, but nothing essential is missing.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain beyond the baseline. The description correctly does not invent or misrepresent any inputs.
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 states a precise verb and resource: create a new RiskMatrix. It also specifies the resulting state, 'unpublished' with an 'editing_draft for the visual editor,' which separates it from the plain risk_matrices_create and from create_draft_from at a semantic level.
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?
The phrase 'for the visual editor' implies the intended context, but the description never explicitly says when to choose this over risk_matrices_create or risk_matrices_create_draft_from. Usage is inferable but not clearly routed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.