update_kb_article_visibility_profile

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It identifies the operation as an update ('Met a jour') but does not cover side effects, error behavior, required permissions, or reversibility. The parameter hints are useful but do not address behavioral aspects beyond the basic mutation intent.

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 two concise sentences, front-loading the main purpose and then providing parameter details. There is no redundancy or irrelevant information. Every phrase contributes to understanding the tool.

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?

The description gives the essential purpose and parameter semantics, including a useful prerequisite, but omissions remain: no return value description, no mention of error handling, and no indication of valid fields beyond the example. Given the tool's relative simplicity, the description is adequate but leaves notable gaps for an agent to fully anticipate outcomes.

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 descriptions provide 0% coverage, so the description fully carries the parameter semantics. It clearly explains visibility_id as the ID from get_kb_article_visibility and update_fields as a set of fields to modify, with a concrete example ({'entities_id': 1, 'is_recursive': 1}). This exceeds minimal compensation, making both parameters understandable.

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 verb ('Met a jour' = update), resource ('une regle de visibilite par profil d'un article KB' = a visibility rule by profile of a KB article), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_kb_article_visibility_group by specifying 'par profil'. This unambiguous purpose makes the tool easy to select.

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 updating profile-based visibility rules but does not explicitly compare with alternatives (e.g., update_kb_article_visibility_group) or state when not to use it. It provides a helpful prerequisite (visibility_id obtained via get_kb_article_visibility) but lacks clear 'when/when-not' guidance.

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