mistral_set_workdir

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

The description discloses the side effect of creating inbox/ and .staging/ subdirectories, adding value beyond the annotations. This aligns with the idempotentHint and non-destructive annotations, with 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 one concise sentence that front-loads the main action and immediately adds the side effect. Every word is useful, with no redundancy.

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?

This is a simple setter with one parameter. The description covers the primary action and side effect, while annotations and output schema provide additional safety and return information. It is sufficiently complete without needing to explain return values.

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 defines only a 'path' string with no description. The description adds that this path is the work directory for transcription, giving it context. However, it lacks details on path format, existence requirements, or relative vs absolute paths.

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 action: 'Set the work directory for transcription.' It also mentions creating inbox/ and .staging/ subdirectories, which clarifies the scope and distinguishes it from mistral_get_workdir.

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 usage is implied: the tool is for setting the working directory when needed. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide any exclusions or special cases.

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