add_kb_article_visibility_group

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only says a group is added to an article's visibility and does not disclose mutation side effects, permission requirements, whether existing visibility entries are replaced or appended, or how entities_id and is_recursive affect behavior.

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?

The description is short, front-loaded, and structured with a parameter bullet. It avoids filler, though its brevity is partly due to omitted information rather than disciplined concision.

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 four parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It omits the required article_id, the optional entity/recursive behavior, and any return or permission context.

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%, so the description should compensate. It defines only groups_id as a GLPI group ID, leaving the required article_id and optional entities_id and is_recursive completely unexplained in both schema and description.

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 specific verb ('Ajoute') and resource ('un groupe dans la visibilité d'un article KB'), making the core action clear. It distinguishes itself from profile-visibility siblings by naming a group rather than a profile, but it does not explicitly contrast with update_kb_article_visibility_group.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_kb_article_visibility_group or add_kb_article_visibility_profile. Usage is only implied by the tool name and the brief action statement.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.