mistral_create_libraryCreate a new document library by specifying a name and optional description, enabling organized document storage and retrieval within Mistral AI workflows.
Create a new document library.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Library name | |
| description | No | Description |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the baseline is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that — no mention of permissions, naming constraints, or what happens on duplicate names — so it contributes essentially nothing beyond the title.
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 short, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It is efficient, though it is nearly identical to the title and thus borders on redundant rather than maximally informative.
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 simple two-parameter create tool with a fully documented schema, annotations, and no output schema, the definition is minimally adequate. It is complete enough to invoke correctly but leaves behavioral and usage context unstated.
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 coverage is 100%, with both 'name' and 'description' documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional meaning (e.g., uniqueness or format constraints) beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 states a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('document library'), which is sufficient to distinguish it from sibling create tools like create_agent or create_conversation. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from related library siblings such as list_libraries or update_library.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of the surrounding library lifecycle (e.g., use list_libraries to discover existing libraries first). The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.