mistral_finalize

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

With all annotations set to false, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It discloses the moves and cleanup of staging session and inbox originals, which are important side effects. It also notes the name slugification. No contradiction with the provided annotations.

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 sentences: a concise one-sentence summary followed by a clear list of actions. It is front-loaded and every clause adds value, with 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?

The description covers the main steps and side effects, and an output schema exists to document return values. It does not mention failure handling or permissions, but for a focused finalization tool with two parameters, this is reasonably complete. The cleanup behavior is explicitly stated, which is critical context.

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 cover both parameters (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds the meaning that the name will be slugified, which is extra semantic context beyond the schema. This justifies a slightly higher score.

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 finalizes a staging session into a named recording directory, listing specific actions: creates directory, moves audio files, writes transcript, and cleans up. This distinguishes it from siblings like mistral_create_session or mistral_transcribe.

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 it is the final step after staging/transcription without explicitly naming alternatives. It provides clear context on what it does, but no explicit 'use this instead of X' guidance. The cleanup side effect hints that it should be used when you are ready to conclude a session.

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