switch_workspace

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description only needed to add context such as index base (0- vs 1-based), behavior when the workspace does not exist, or whether it is created on demand. None of that is present, so the description adds essentially nothing beyond the annotations and the name.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, appropriate for a one-parameter tool. It is a fragment rather than a full sentence, which limits how much structure it can carry but wastes nothing.

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-param tool with no output schema, the definition is minimally viable. It omits the two things an agent would actually need to succeed: whether workspace numbering starts at 0 or 1, and what happens if the number is out of range.

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 already describes "workspace" as the workspace number to switch to. The description's "by number" restates the schema rather than adding range, index base, or validity constraints, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ("Switch to a specific workspace") plus the selection mechanism ("by number"), which implicitly separates it from next_workspace/prev_workspace. It never names those siblings, so an agent must infer the contrast rather than being told it.

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?

"By number" implies the tool is for direct jumps when the target workspace ID is known, versus relative navigation, but no when-to-use or when-not guidance is given and no alternative is named. Usage is inferable from the phrasing rather than stated.

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