uvcs_switch_workspace_confirm

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so mutation risk is declared. The description adds real value beyond that: the pending-changes refusal rule and the human-approval gate before execution. It stops short of describing the outcome of a successful switch (what state changes, what the response returns), which is the only notable gap.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by preconditions and the approval gate. There is mild redundancy between 'Switch the workspace...' and 'Confirms and executes a prepared operation,' but nothing that materially dilutes the guidance.

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 destructive two-step confirm tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the prerequisite prepare step, the blocking condition, and the approval requirement an agent must satisfy before calling. Nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both token and confirmPhrase fully documented in-schema. The description only implies the token chaining via 'Requires prepare/confirm' and adds no new detail about the token or the exact confirmPhrase, so baseline 3 is right.

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 the workspace to a branch, changeset, or label') and then clarifies that this tool is the confirm/execute half of a two-step flow. That distinguishes it cleanly from the sibling uvcs_switch_workspace_prepare without needing 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?

Gives explicit preconditions: 'Requires prepare/confirm' and 'Call only after the user has reviewed the prepared payload and explicitly approved this exact operation.' It also names a blocking condition ('Refused while tracked pending changes exist'), so the agent knows when the call will fail rather than be executed.

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