update_kb_article

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. It states the action 'Met a jour' (updates) but does not explain whether update_fields performs a partial update or full replacement, what happens if the article does not exist, whether permissions are required, or what the response looks like. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences that convey the primary purpose and examples. Every word contributes to understanding, with no redundant or extraneous content. It front-loads the core action and immediately lists relevant fields.

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 tool with only 2 parameters, one of which is a nested object, and no output schema or annotations, the description is under-specified. It does not clarify the update semantics, how to construct update_fields, error behavior, or any side effects. While it identifies the action and some field examples, it leaves critical operational details unknown.

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 itself provides minimal parameter details (just types and titles), so the description's mention of example fields (name, answer, is_faq, knowbaseitemcategories_id) adds useful meaning for the update_fields object. However, it does not explain the purpose of article_id or specify how update_fields should be structured, leaving ambiguity despite some added value.

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 the tool's function: 'Met a jour un article de la base de connaissances' (Updates a knowledge base article), specifying both the action (update) and the resource (knowledge base article). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_kb_article or create_kb_article, and the example fields further clarify the scope.

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 provided on when to use this tool or its alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, such as needing an existing article_id, or when to prefer update_kb_article over other update tools for different resource types. There are no exclusions or alternative tool references.

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