update_kb_article_visibility_group

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for a mutation tool. It says nothing about permissions, reversibility, side effects on related rules, or what the response looks like – only that fields get modified.

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 front-loaded main sentence followed by two short bullets, each earning its place by documenting a required parameter. No padding, though the bullets are terse.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the inputs adequately but leaves out behavioral context (permissions, effects, return). It is workable but not complete.

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 compensate, and it does: it explains what visibility_id refers to (a KnowbaseItem_Group entry) and its source, and gives a concrete example of update_fields keys ('entities_id', 'is_recursive') that the schema itself does not document.

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 and resource ('Met à jour une règle de visibilité par groupe d'un article KB'), clearly distinguishing this group-scoped rule updater from the profile/parent variants. It does not name the sibling tools explicitly, but the group scope is unambiguous.

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?

It gives a concrete prerequisite for the key identifier ('visibility_id : ... obtenu via get_kb_article_visibility'), which tells the agent how to acquire the input before calling. There is no explicit when-not or comparison to update_kb_article_visibility_profile, so it stops short of a 5.

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