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

Annotations cover mutation (readOnlyHint=false), idempotency (idempotentHint=true), and non-destructiveness (destructiveHint=false). The description adds the user-consent requirement as a behavioral precondition, which is meaningful context beyond the annotations, though it doesn't detail side effects of the reset.

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?

A single sentence with zero waste. The precondition leads, followed by the action and outcome. Nothing is redundant or extraneous.

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 consent-gated reset action with an output schema and rich annotations, the description covers the essential information: the precondition, the action, and the outcome. It could clarify what makes a binding 'unavailable,' but the output schema and annotations carry the remaining burden.

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?

With zero parameters, the description carries no parameter burden. The baseline for a 0-parameter tool is 4; the description correctly avoids inventing parameters and accurately implies a stateless action.

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 (reset), a specific resource (this MCP connection's unavailable workspace binding), and the resulting outcome (choose from active workspaces). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like switch_data_parrot_workspace and select_data_parrot_workspace, which operate on active workspaces rather than resetting an unavailable binding.

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 front-loads the precondition 'After the user explicitly agrees,' giving a clear when-to-use condition. It implies this is for an unavailable/stale binding scenario, distinguishing it from the switch/select siblings, though it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or state when NOT to use it.

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