add_kb_article_visibility_profile

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the basic add operation and explains the effect of is_recursive and entities_id. It omits critical traits such as permission requirements, idempotency/deduplication behavior, side effects on existing visibility, and error cases.

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 front-loaded with the tool's purpose and uses a compact bullet list for parameter clarifications. Every sentence and bullet earns its place with no redundancy.

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, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It fails to document the required article_id, does not describe permissions or side effects, and gives no indication of what happens when a visibility entry already exists.

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%, so the description must supply parameter meaning. It explains profiles_id, entities_id (0 = root entity), and is_recursive (apply to sub-entities), adding value beyond the bare schema. However, it completely omits the required article_id parameter, leaving a significant 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?

The description states a specific verb ("Ajoute") and resource ("un profil dans la visibilité d'un article KB"), clearly distinguishing it from the sibling add_kb_article_visibility_group (group vs profile) and update variants. An agent can tell what it does without opening the schema.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or on prerequisites such as required permissions or whether the article/profile must already exist. The description simply states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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