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

Annotations say readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this writes but doesn't destroy. The description adds genuinely non-derivable context: the effect is session-scoped, affecting 'subsequent actions', and omitting it falls back to the account default. It omits failure behavior for an invalid or inaccessible workspace_id.

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?

Two tight sentences with the effect scope front-loaded and the default-fallback rule second. The only waste is the leading 'Select Workspace -' label that repeats the tool name/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-optional-parameter tool with a 100% documented schema and an output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: what the call changes, how long it applies, and what happens when it is skipped. The notable remaining gap is where valid workspace IDs come from, given the many workspace-related siblings.

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 the schema description already says omission means 'current or default workspace', so the description's parallel statement largely restates it. With one optional parameter and full schema documentation, the baseline 3 applies; no syntax or ID-provenance guidance is added.

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+resource and goes beyond the name by explaining the effect scope: the workspace is set for 'subsequent actions in this session'. It does not distinguish itself from workspace siblings like get_all_workspaces, list_my_workspaces, create_workspace, or update_workspace, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

Usage is implied by 'used by subsequent actions in this session' plus the fallback rule when omitted, which tells the agent it can legitimately skip the call. There is no explicit routing guidance such as 'use get_all_workspaces to discover IDs' or 'do not use this to modify workspace settings (use update_workspace)'.

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