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

Goes well beyond the annotations (which only give readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false): it discloses the dry-run preview and its contents, the fact that nothing changes without confirm:true, the session-wide scope affecting all assistants on the account, the reversal only via a later switch, and that it works even when write actions are off or the plan has lapsed. This is exactly the behavioral context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loads the core action and the primary precondition before the mechanics, and each sentence carries distinct information (preview, scope, edge cases). Slightly dense as a single paragraph with some re-emphasis of the workspace/scope idea, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 exists, and the description compensates by describing the preview's return contents (workspace name, your role, write and AI-spend switches) and the post-switch behavior of subsequent calls. Combined with the 100%-covered schema and safety annotations, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning about the confirm/previewToken interaction that the field-level text only partially conveys (the preview-changes-nothing contract and the explicit-yes gate). It also reinforces that workspaceId comes from list_workspaces.

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 ('Make the connector act in another of your workspaces') and immediately anchors the id source to list_workspaces, a sibling. An agent can distinguish this from list_workspaces and all other siblings without opening a 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?

Explicitly scopes when to call: 'Only call this when the user asks to work in another workspace.' It further prescribes the two-step confirmation flow and the exact user interaction ('show it and wait for an explicit yes, as for any write'), leaving no inference required.

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