add_kb_article_visibility_profile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only explains parameter semantics (profiles_id, entities_id, is_recursive) but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on duplicate entry, permission requirements, or any side effects. For a mutation tool, this lack of behavioral disclosure is a significant gap.

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 concise, using a short sentence followed by three bullet points for parameter clarifications. Every line contributes relevant information with no redundant or filler content.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core parameters but misses other contextual needs: no return value information, no prerequisites, no mention of how this relates to sibling visibility tools (e.g., update vs add). It is adequate for a basic understanding but incomplete for full autonomous invocation.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage per context signals. The description provides meaningful explanations for profiles_id, entities_id (with default 0 meaning root entity), and is_recursive (apply to sub-entities), which adds substantial value beyond the bare schema titles. However, article_id is not explained, though it is fairly self-evident as the target KB article.

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 clearly states 'Ajoute un profil dans la visibilite d'un article KB' (Add a profile to a KB article's visibility), specifying a concrete verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tool add_kb_article_visibility_group by focusing on 'profil' (profile) rather than 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?

The description implies usage for adding a profile visibility entry, but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_kb_article_visibility_group or the update variations. No exclusion or alternative guidance is provided, leaving the agent to infer from sibling names.

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