set_workspace

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does disclose the key behavioral trait: switching the workspace affects all subsequent numeric tool calls. It also reveals the constraint that name must be a valid workspace from list_workspaces. It doesn't describe invalid-name behavior or persistence, which would be nice but is not essential for such a simple setter.

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 only two sentences, with the core purpose and side effect stated first and the parameter constraint second. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no vague filler.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is complete enough: it states what the tool does, the side effect on subsequent calls, and where the valid value comes from. An agent has sufficient information to invoke it 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 schema already documents the name parameter and its source. The description reiterates that name must come from list_workspaces, which matches the schema description and adds no new semantic information beyond the schema. Hence the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'switch current workspace', and clearly states the tool's role as a state setter for all subsequent numeric tool calls. The context distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_workspaces and read_table by emphasizing that it changes the active workspace rather than querying or transforming data.

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 clear usage context: call this to change the workspace that subsequent numeric tools will act on. It also states the prerequisite that name must come from list_workspaces, which is actionable guidance. It does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, but there is no real alternative for this action among the siblings.

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