mistral_save_processed

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint: false) and idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable context by specifying the exact filename 'transcript_clean.md' and the 'finalized recording directory', which goes beyond the schema and annotations. No contradictions.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every word contributes. No waste 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?

For a simple 2-parameter write tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and output file. It lacks some details like directory existence handling or return value, but those are not critical given the annotations and schema.

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%, with both content and recording fully described. The description does not add additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Save a cleaned transcript into a finalized recording directory' with a specific output file. It uses a specific verb+resource and distinguishes from siblings like mistral_read_staging_transcript or mistral_finalize by focusing on saving cleaned content.

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 context ('cleaned transcript' → 'finalized recording directory') but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria. It lacks any 'when to use' vs. 'when not to use' guidance, though the purpose is fairly clear.

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