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

The description goes beyond the annotations by explaining the effect of switching: it changes which workflows, folders, and credentials are visible. This is useful behavioral context not captured by the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint flags.

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?

The description is two concise sentences that front-load the purpose and follow with usage and effect. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or vague wording.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, and the visible side effect. Since an output schema exists, not describing return values is acceptable, and nothing critical is missing.

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?

Although the schema provides no description for organization_id, the tool description fully explains its meaning and accepted values ('pass an organization_id', 'pass null/empty'). This completely compensates for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('Switch') and the resource ('workspaces'), and distinguishes between personal and organization workspaces. It immediately tells the agent what the tool does and why it exists.

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?

The description gives explicit instructions on how to use the tool: pass an organization_id to switch to that org, or pass null/empty to switch to personal. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' or alternatives, but the usage context is clear and actionable.

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