set_workspace_count

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers the key non-obvious side effect: windows on removed workspaces are relocated to the last remaining one. It stops short of saying whether increasing the count creates empty workspaces or what happens when the range is violated.

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 compact sentences; the operation and its valid range come first and the side-effect warning follows. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 single-parameter mutation with an output schema (so return values need not be described) and no annotations, the description covers the essential semantics and the destructive side effect. Missing only edge-case outcomes such as out-of-range input handling and behavior on increase versus decrease.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does partially by supplying the 1-32 bound and clarifying that 'count' is the absolute target number rather than a delta. It could still spell out the failure behavior for out-of-range values or equal-to-current calls.

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 precise verb and resource ('change how many workspaces there are') plus the valid range (1-32), which clearly separates it from siblings like view_workspace, move_window_to_workspace, and tile_windows. An agent can identify the operation without opening the 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?

Usage is only implied: the agent must infer that this is the tool for resizing the workspace set. There is no explicit when-to-use, no mention of prerequisites, and no exclusion pointing at related siblings such as move_window_to_workspace for rearranging content.

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