ciso_assistant_api_risk_scenarios_destroyDeletes a risk scenario by ID through the CISO Assistant API, removing it from risk management records.
API endpoint that allows risk scenarios 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 already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing and, worse, frames the endpoint as view/edit, omitting that the record is permanently removed and whether related objects cascade.
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 with no padding, but it is generic DRF viewset boilerplate that conveys no tool-specific value, so its brevity buys little.
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 single-record operation with no output schema, the definition should state permanence, cascade effects, and required permissions. None of that is present, and the view/edit framing actively obscures the 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?
Schema coverage is 0% and the single required `id` parameter is undocumented in both schema and description. The description never mentions that it takes an id or what that id identifies, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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?
"API endpoint that allows risk scenarios to be viewed or edited" names the resource but not the actual operation: this tool destroys a risk scenario. The verbs it does state (view/edit) belong to sibling retrieve/update tools, so an agent must infer the delete behavior from the tool name alone.
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 instead of ciso_assistant_api_risk_scenarios_update, ciso_assistant_api_risk_scenarios_partial_update, or the other destroy siblings. Nothing states preconditions, confirmation requirements, or consequences.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.