ciso_assistant_api_threats_destroyDeletes a specific threat record in CISO Assistant by ID, enabling removal of outdated or invalid threat data through the API.
API endpoint that allows threats 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 state destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, but the description presents the endpoint as viewing/editing. Nothing about irreversibility, required permissions, or side effects of deleting a threat is disclosed; the description works against the annotations rather than supplementing them.
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 short and front-loaded, but the one sentence it contains is boilerplate that misstates the operation, so brevity buys nothing. The space available is used to describe the wrong behavior rather than the destructive action.
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 delete with no output schema, no annotations beyond the safety hints, and an undocumented id parameter, the description must carry confirmation and consequence information. It provides none, so an agent cannot safely invoke this tool from the definition alone.
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 parameter 'id' is completely unexplained. The description adds no information about what the identifier refers to (threat UUID), so an agent must guess both format and referent.
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 says the endpoint 'allows threats to be viewed or edited', which never mentions deletion even though the tool name and route are destroy. It describes a read/update capability that this tool does not provide, actively misleading the agent about the operation.
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 when-to-use guidance, no alternative named, and no indication that this is the deletion path versus the sibling list/create/update/partial_update threat tools. The implied guidance ('view or edit') would route the agent to the wrong tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.