uvcs_switch_workspace_prepare

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds substantive behavior: a refusal condition, a mandatory confirm follow-up, and that the call returns a short-lived confirmation token rather than performing the switch. It stops short of saying how long the token lives or what happens if it expires.

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, front-loaded with the action, then precondition, then workflow/return. No filler, and each sentence contributes a distinct fact an agent needs.

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 prepare tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does, the blocking condition, the confirm handoff, and the token return. Remaining gaps — token lifetime and whether confirm re-takes the same target — are minor but real.

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 supplies example syntax (/main/task, cs:92, lb:LABEL). The description's 'branch, changeset, or label' informally names those same categories, adding only marginal semantic value over the structured field — 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 (switch) and resource (workspace) with the three target kinds (branch, changeset, label), which maps directly to the sole parameter. It signals the prepare/confirm pairing rather than naming teammates like uvcs_checkout_prepare or uvcs_update_workspace_prepare, so sibling differentiation is only partial.

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?

Provides a real precondition ('Refused while tracked pending changes exist') and the two-step prepare/confirm requirement, which is genuine usage context. However, it never says when an agent should pick this over the similarly named uvcs_checkout_prepare or uvcs_update_workspace_prepare, and offers no exclusion rule beyond the pending-changes block.

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