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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds real value on top: a consent gate (explicit user agreement) and the post-condition (the binding is cleared so the user can choose an active workspace). It doesn't say what happens if no unavailable binding exists or whether the reset is immediate.

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?

One sentence, no waste, and the gating condition (user agreement) is front-loaded ahead of the effect.

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?

With a rich annotation set, an output schema, and no parameters, the description covers consent and effect adequately. Only edge-case behavior (no unavailable binding present) is left unstated.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and it correctly frames the call as taking no arguments.

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?

States a specific verb (reset) and a specific resource (this MCP connection's unavailable workspace binding), plus the motivation (so the user can pick from active workspaces). This implicitly separates it from switch/select_data_parrot_workspace, though it never names those siblings outright.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition — only after the user explicitly agrees — and implies the trigger condition is a binding that is unavailable. It stops short of naming switch_data_parrot_workspace or select_data_parrot_workspace as the alternatives for the other cases.

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