activate_workbench

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the useful detail of what kind of value the switch targets (workbench identifiers) but says nothing about side effects such as UI panel changes, whether open documents are affected, or what happens if the name is invalid.

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?

A single sentence with the action front-loaded and the examples placed immediately after the resource, exactly where the reader needs them. No filler or redundant 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a one-parameter UI-state mutation tool, the description covers the core action and valid value shape but omits prerequisites, failure behavior for unknown workbench names, and the effect on the editor state - all of which an agent would want before calling.

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 0% for the single required parameter 'name', so the description must carry weight. It does help by supplying three concrete example values, which clarifies the expected string vocabulary. However, it does not state case sensitivity, quoting expectations, or how to discover the full valid set, so the gap is only partially filled.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Switch FreeCAD's active workbench'. The parenthetical examples ('PartDesignWorkbench', 'PartWorkbench', 'TechDrawWorkbench') make the target concept unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings, but none of the listed siblings perform this action, so confusion is unlikely.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative is named. The agent must infer that this should be called before using workbench-specific tools, and nothing states whether a document must be open or which workbenches are valid at a given moment.

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