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

Annotations already declare non-readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the switch persists for both the agent session and the web app, and it changes where role tools subsequently list and create. It stops short of stating any membership/permission prerequisite for switching.

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 action and its scope, followed by the consequence and the alternative. No filler or restatement of the title.

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, no-output-schema state-change tool, the description covers effect, scope and the alternative path. The only missing piece is whether the switch requires prior membership or returns a confirmation.

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 already documents `workspace` as a name or id sourced from list_workspaces, so the description adds nothing new about the parameter itself. 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 concrete action and object: make a workspace the current one. It also scopes the effect ('for this agent and the web app'), which distinguishes it cleanly from list_workspaces and create_workspace in the sibling set.

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 names the alternative path — pass `workspace` to another tool for a single-call override — and gives the condition that selects it. The agent does not have to guess when a full switch is warranted versus a per-call override.

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