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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=true and destructive=false, so the safety profile is structured data. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: changing workspace "moves this connection, like switch_workspace," revealing a side effect on session binding rather than a plain data edit. It does not mention permissions or whether omitted keys are preserved explicitly beyond the "change only what the user asked" hint.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then per-field guidance, closing with a scope constraint. Every sentence is actionable, though the timezone example (Europe/Budapest) restates what the nested schema already shows, a minor redundancy.

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 exists so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover mutability and idempotency. The description supplies the missing decision logic and the cross-tool dependencies, leaving only minor gaps such as validation failure behavior for invalid timezone names.

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?

The single parameter is a nested object whose inner properties do carry descriptions, but the reported top-level coverage is 0%, so the description must carry weight. It supplies the IANA format expectation, the provenance of a valid workspace value (read_settings output), and the consequence of setting workspace, which goes beyond the schema's field notes.

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 and resource ("Change the user's Postemi settings") and enumerates the two settable fields, timezone and workspace. It explicitly relates itself to siblings read_settings (the source of valid workspace names) and switch_workspace (the equivalent effect of changing workspace), so an agent can place it without opening another 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?

Gives concrete triggering conditions: save timezone when the user states it and get_workspace_context returned none; change workspace using a name obtained from read_settings. It also adds a scope guard ("Change only what the user asked for"), which is a when-not instruction against over-writing.

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