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

Annotations already tell the agent this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description goes beyond them by disclosing that the effect is stateful and sticky across subsequent calls, that non-member workspaces are refused, and that personal data stays in the caller's private workspace. It leaves the lifetime of the switch unspecified (session vs. connection vs. persistent).

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?

Four compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and effect, then constraints. The privacy sentence is somewhat tangential but does earn its place by preempting a reasonable concern about data scoping.

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?

No output schema and minimal annotations, so the description must convey the operational contract, and it does: what changes, how long it applies, when it is refused, and what is unaffected. Only the failure/return behavior of the switch itself and its persistence scope are left implicit.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden and it largely does: it names 'workspace_id', tells the agent where to obtain a valid value (list_my_workspaces), and states the membership constraint that makes a value valid. It stops short of stating the ID format or what error surfaces on an invalid id.

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 ('the ACTIVE company workspace') plus the eligibility constraint (one the caller belongs to). It also routes the agent to list_my_workspaces for the id, so it is distinguishable from that sibling without opening either schema.

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?

Explains the consequence of use ('Every subsequent tool call then operates in that workspace') and gives a precondition for the argument (must be a member). It does not spell out when NOT to switch (e.g. already in the target workspace, or read-only flows), so the exclusion guidance is partial.

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