mistral_set_context_bias

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

Annotations already cover idempotency and non-destructiveness. The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond that: accepts comma-separated or newline-separated terms, max 100, and supports file path input relative to the work directory. It does not contradict 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 with zero fluff. The first sentence states purpose, the second specifies input constraints. Each sentence earns its place and the structure is front-loaded with the primary action.

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 setter tool with one parameter, the description is nearly complete. It covers input formats, limits, and file path behavior. It could mention whether it replaces or appends to existing bias terms, but the verb 'set' strongly implies replacement, and a sibling 'clear' exists. The presence of an output schema means return values do not need description.

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 only specifies 'terms' as a string with no description. The description fully compensates by explaining accepted formats (comma/newline-separated), the limit (max 100), and the file path interpretation. This turns a bare parameter into a well-understood input.

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 uses a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('context bias terms') and clearly states the purpose ('for better transcription accuracy'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_context_bias' and 'clear_context_bias' by focusing on the set operation.

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 makes clear when to use the tool: to set context bias terms for transcription accuracy. It does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, but the sibling tool names (get, clear) provide context. It adds input format details (comma/newline-separated, max 100, file path) that hint at usage nuances.

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