ciso_assistant_api_risk_matrices_updateUpdate a risk matrix by ID in CISO Assistant to keep risk scoring and thresholds aligned with current assessment criteria.
API endpoint that allows risk matrices 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 already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no mention of whether omitted fields are reset (full replace semantics), permission requirements, or what a successful response looks like. The "viewed or edited" phrasing is muddy but not a strict contradiction of the 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?
A single short sentence, so there is no bloat, but its brevity comes from being generic rather than from being dense. It front-loads boilerplate ("API endpoint that allows...") rather than the actionable 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 mutation tool with zero parameter documentation, no output schema, and a very large sibling set of near-identical risk-matrix operations, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot determine the expected body structure or how this differs from partial update based on what is written.
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% across both parameters: `id` is undocumented and `body` is a free-form object with additionalProperties allowed and no field hints. The description does not compensate at all — it never mentions that `body` carries the risk matrix payload or what fields it accepts, leaving the agent to guess the entire request shape.
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 in boilerplate form ("API endpoint that allows risk matrices to be viewed or edited") without clarifying that this is the full-update operation as opposed to retrieval or partial update. Saying the endpoint is for both "viewed" and "edited" actively blurs the distinction from the many sibling risk_matrices tools (retrieve, partial_update, list).
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 tool versus ciso_assistant_api_risk_matrices_partial_update, risk_matrices_retrieve, or risk_matrices_save_draft_partial_update. The only implied usage is that you supply an id and edit a matrix, which the name already conveys. No prerequisites, no exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.