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

Annotations flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, which is surprising for a "switch" operation, yet the description never explains what is destroyed or replaced (current binding, cached catalog state, prior results). It adds only a provenance constraint, leaving the destructive semantics entirely unexplained.

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 short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the key constraint. No padding, though the terseness contributes to the gaps in the other dimensions.

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?

An output schema covers return values, so that need not be described. But a destructive, binding-changing tool in a cluster of three workspace-management siblings needs at least a note on what switching displaces and how it differs from select/reset; that is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the single tenant_id parameter is already documented as coming from workspace_options with explicit user choice. The description restates that same constraint without adding format, validation, or error-behavior detail.

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 verb and resource are clear ("switch ... workspace"), but the description never distinguishes this from the two other workspace-related siblings, select_data_parrot_workspace and reset_data_parrot_workspace_binding. An agent must guess whether switching is a re-selection, a reset, or a distinct operation.

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?

"Switch only to a workspace the user selected from workspace_options" implies a precondition (user-chosen workspace) and an implicit prohibition on arbitrary tenant IDs. However, it gives no guidance on when to prefer this over select_data_parrot_workspace or when reset_data_parrot_workspace_binding is the right call instead.

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