Mimir has 34 tools with consistent naming (verb_noun pattern: create, get, list, update, etc.) and complete input schemas with typed parameters. However, descriptions are uniformly terse (10-40 chars), well below the 50-200 char LLM-optimized baseline. Most parameter descriptions are minimal (e.g., 'Node identifier' for id). No output schemas are documented. Error handling is present but generic. The server follows basic structure but lacks the depth needed for confident LLM tool selection and recovery guidance.

• Expand all tool descriptions to 80-150 chars. Include WHAT (action), WHEN (use case), and any prerequisites. E.g., 'Create a new task node under a parent. Use this to add work items to a project. Parent must exist; returns new node ID.'
• Document output schemas for all tools. Specify returned fields, types, and which fields are safe to pass to downstream tools. E.g., 'Returns {id: string, title: string, status: string, parent_id: string}'.
• Add format and constraint hints to parameter descriptions. E.g., 'Node identifier (UUID)' or 'Status (one of: open, in_progress, done)'.
• Add recovery guidance to descriptions of lookup tools (get, get_seed, resolve). E.g., 'If not found, call list() or seeds() to discover available items.'
• Implement confirmation or dry-run for destructive operations (scratch_discard, reject). Return a confirmation token that must be passed to execute, or add a dry_run parameter.