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

Annotations already convey that the operation is a write (readOnlyHint=false), idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the user-selection constraint, which is valuable, but it does not disclose what happens on switch, whether it changes a binding, or what the output contains. This is adequate but not rich.

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 that is front-loaded with the action and immediately communicates the critical safety constraint. No wasted words; every part earns its place.

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 one-parameter tool with annotations and an output schema, the description is mostly sufficient. The main gap is the missing relationship to select_data_parrot_workspace and reset_data_parrot_workspace_binding, and where workspace_options comes from. This could cause an agent to misuse the tool when several workspace-related siblings exist.

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 100%, and the tenant_id parameter is already described as 'from workspace_options explicitly chosen by the user.' The tool description essentially restates this same constraint without adding new meaning about the parameter's format, source, or behavior.

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 action (switch) and resource (workspace), and includes a clear constraint (only to a user-selected workspace from workspace_options). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling select_data_parrot_workspace, leaving some ambiguity about how 'switch' differs from 'select'.

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 word 'only' gives a meaningful usage condition: this tool must be used exclusively with a workspace the user explicitly selected from workspace_options. It does not mention alternatives or explicit when-not-to-use scenarios, but the precondition is clearly stated and strong.

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