mistral_create_conversationStart a new conversation with a Mistral agent by sending initial messages. Provide agent ID, model, and message history to begin an interactive chat session.
Create a new conversation with an agent.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| model | No | Model | |
| agent_id | No | Agent ID | |
| messages | Yes | Initial messages |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already disclose that this is a non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive write. The description adds nothing beyond 'create', omitting any mention of required permissions, effect on existing data, or rate limits. No contradiction, but no added behavioral context either.
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 single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though its extreme brevity borders on under-specification rather than true conciseness.
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 mutation tool that requires a messages array and supports agent_id and model, the description never mentions the required input or how the conversation relates to the agent. Annotations cover safety, but the description leaves large gaps in invocation guidance.
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 100%, so the schema carries parameter documentation (albeit terse labels like 'Model' and 'Initial messages'). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
States a specific verb (create) and resource (conversation), and adds the scope 'with an agent'. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling mistral_append_conversation, which also creates conversation content, leaving the agent to infer the difference from the name alone.
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 when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use, and no alternatives are named. The agent receives no hint about when this is preferable to append_conversation or chat_completion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.