update_kb_article

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It never states required permissions, whether unspecified fields are preserved or wiped, whether the update is partial or full replacement, or what the result looks like — all critical for a mutation on a freeform object.

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?

Two short sentences, purpose first and field examples second, with no filler. Efficient and front-loaded, though the example list is too terse to be fully actionable.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a freeform nested object, the description is thin: it omits permissions, partial-update semantics, and the range of acceptable keys. An agent can identify the tool but not safely invoke it.

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%, and the nested update_fields object has additionalProperties:true, so the description's examples (name, answer, is_faq, knowbaseitemcategories_id) genuinely add value about accepted keys. However, article_id receives no explanation and the examples are prefixed 'exemples', giving no indication of the authoritative field set.

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?

States a clear verb+resource ('Met à jour un article de la base de connaissances'), which lets an agent separate it from create/get/list/search KB siblings. It doesn't explicitly name or contrast with those siblings, so it falls short of 5.

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?

The verb 'met à jour' implies the article must already exist, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives like create_kb_article or get_kb_article. Nothing tells the agent when this is the wrong tool.

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