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 burden of behavioral disclosure. While the description clearly indicates a mutation ('Met a jour'), it does not disclose potential side effects, error behavior, whether the update is partial or full replacement, or any permission requirements. This is a significant gap for a write operation.

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 lines for the purpose plus two parameter explanations. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every sentence earns its place. No fluff or repetition.

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 the simplicity of the tool (two parameters, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context to invoke it correctly. It covers both parameters and gives a few extra hints. It lacks information on return values or error cases, but that is not critical for a simple update operation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains that visibility_id is the ID of a KnowbaseItem_Group entry obtained via get_kb_article_visibility, and provides an example of update_fields. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, but it doesn't enumerate possible fields beyond the example.

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 verb 'Met a jour' (update) and the resource 'regle de visibilite par groupe d'un article KB' (visibility rule by group of a KB article). It differentiates from sibling tools like update_kb_article_visibility_profile and add_kb_article_visibility_group by specifying 'par groupe'.

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 provides a concrete usage hint: visibility_id is obtained via get_kb_article_visibility. It also gives an example of update_fields, implying the tool is used for partial updates of group-based visibility rules. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over the profile version, so it misses the 'when-not' part for a full 5.

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