ciso_assistant_api_solutions_batch_action_createExecute a batch action on multiple CISO Assistant objects to update or process several records at once.
Perform a batch action on multiple objects.
| 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 readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say which action verbs the batch payload accepts, whether partial failure is atomic or per-object, or what permissions are needed for a mutation 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?
A single short sentence with no filler, but it is under-specified rather than concise — the sentence is too thin to be useful and contains no front-loaded scoping or routing detail.
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?
No output schema exists, and the empty object schema plus annotations leave the agent without any notion of the accepted actions, target object type, or response shape. For a mutation endpoint in a large CRUD surface, the description should carry far more of that burden than one sentence.
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?
Parameter count is zero, and the rules set a baseline of 4 when no parameters exist, so the description cannot be expected to document parameter meaning. The absence of any payload description is nonetheless notable given that a batch action realistically needs a body, but that gap lies in the schema rather than the prose.
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 essentially restates the name "batch action create" with the generic word "objects"; it never says the objects are solutions (the CISO Assistant solution/entity-perimeter objects) nor what the action does. Against siblings like ciso_assistant_api_frameworks_batch_action_create or ciso_assistant_api_assets_batch_action_create, an agent gains no discriminating information.
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?
There is no indication of when to use this bulk endpoint versus looping the per-object create/update/destroy siblings, what preconditions exist, or whether callers need bulk-edit permissions. Only a bare capability statement is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.