activate_plane_workspace

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a meaningful trait: activation is local and does not hit Plane or expose the API key. However, it says nothing about whether the switch persists across calls, what happens with an unknown/unconfigured profile, or any side effects — gaps that matter for a state-changing tool.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the key constraint (no Plane contact, no API key exposure) is stated immediately.

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, but for a state-changing activation tool the description omits how to discover valid profile names and what the activation affects for subsequent calls. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 0% and the single 'profile' parameter has no description, so the description must compensate. It does add the constraint that the value must be an already-'configured' profile, but gives no guidance on valid values, format, or where to obtain them (e.g., list_configured_plane_workspaces).

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 to') and resource ('configured Plane workspace profile'), which is distinguishable from the sibling activate_plane_project that operates on a project rather than a workspace profile. It does not explicitly name that sibling, but the workspace-vs-project distinction is legible from the wording.

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 phrase 'without contacting Plane or exposing its API key' implies the context of use (a local/offline profile switch that avoids credentials), but no explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternative tools are named. An agent must infer that list_configured_plane_workspaces should be consulted first.

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