set_workspace

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

Annotations already indicate read-only=false and destructive=false, and the description adds the re-indexing side effect, which is valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations. No contradiction present.

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 a single two-clause sentence that communicates both the action and a key side effect with zero redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficient: it names the operation, the target resource, and the re-indexing consequence. It doesn't need to explain return values, and its simplicity fits the tool's low complexity.

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 'path' parameter is clearly described as 'Absolute path to the new workspace directory'. The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states, so 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 uses a specific verb ('Set or change') with a clear resource ('workspace directory') and adds a distinctive side effect ('Re-indexes the codebase'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like write/edit and analyze.

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 implies usage context: it's for setting or changing the workspace directory, which is a clear purpose. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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