Switch workspace

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

Annotations only declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true). The description adds two non-obvious traits the annotations cannot convey: the setting persists for the remainder of the session, and it affects only this MCP connection, not the user's browser switcher — preventing a plausible wrong assumption about UI side effects.

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?

Three short sentences, zero padding. The purpose and its persistence scope lead, and the browser-vs-MCP clarification follows as the caveat it is.

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-parameter, session-scoped state setter with no output schema and annotations covering safety, the description covers what changes, how long it lasts, and what it does not touch. An agent has everything needed to call 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?

With one parameter and 100% schema description coverage ('Workspace id from list_workspaces'), the schema already carries the semantics. The description repeats the same origin hint without adding format, validation, or failure behavior, so the 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?

Specific verb (set/switch) plus resource (workspace) plus the exact scope it applies to: every later tool call for the rest of the session. That scope statement distinguishes it cleanly from siblings like list_workspaces, create_workspace, and rename_workspace, which are about enumerating or modifying workspace entities rather than pointing the connection at one.

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?

It tells the agent where the argument comes from ('from list_workspaces'), which is genuine routing guidance toward a sibling. It does not state when not to call it or what happens if a switch is already in effect, so it stops short of explicit when/when-not framing.

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