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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds the key behavioral fact annotations can't convey: the switch persists across 'all subsequent tool calls' for the session. It doesn't warn whether existing session state is discarded or whether the workspace_id must be pre-validated, leaving some gaps.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and session scope, then trigger condition. Nothing redundant; every sentence carries information.

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-param state-switching tool with an output schema, the description covers action, trigger, and session-wide effect well. It could mention how to get a workspace_id or that the change affects in-flight assumptions, but overall it is complete enough.

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 parameter already documents its purpose ('The ID of the workspace to switch to'). The description adds nothing about obtaining a valid workspace_id, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (Switch) and resource (active Boomerang workspace) with the crucial scope qualifier 'for the current MCP session'. This tells an agent exactly what state changes and how broadly the effect applies, distinguishing it from get_current_workspace and search_workspaces.

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?

Explicitly says when to call it ('when the user asks to work in a different workspace'), which is clear trigger guidance. It does not name alternatives like search_workspaces (to find an ID) or get_current_workspace, so a 4 rather than 5.

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