n2_mimir_study_start

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose two useful traits: the operation persists ('durable') and returns a sessionId, and that same-topic sessions are not deduplicated. It omits side effects, whether a topic can have multiple concurrent open sessions, and what happens on failure or retry beyond what the schema's requestId note covers.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The semicolon-joined second clause is slightly compressed and would read better as a separate statement, but nothing is wasted.

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 stateful creation tool with five loosely documented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the definition is thin. It usefully states the return value and uniqueness behavior, but leaves parameter meanings and lifecycle relationships to sibling tools unexplained.

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 only 20% (just requestId), so the description must compensate, and it does not. Four of five parameters — project, topic, agent, source — get no explanation of meaning, defaults, or how project/topic scoping interacts with the 'durable scoped' framing.

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 and resource ('Start durable scoped study collection') and names the artifact produced ('sessionId'). It broadly distinguishes itself from siblings like n2_mimir_study_end and n2_mimir_study_sessions, but never names those siblings or clarifies the boundary with n2_mimir_study_add.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: nothing says to call this before adding observations with n2_mimir_study_add, to close with n2_mimir_study_end, or to check n2_mimir_study_sessions first. The pairing is only inferable from the tool name.

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