set_default_workspace

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses key behaviors: it persists to a config file under OS config dir, the effect is reported by other tools, and it explicitly states it does not affect the live API target. This is sufficient for a simple write operation. Minor gap: no mention of whether it overwrites or appends, but the context implies setting a single value.

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?

Two sentences, no redundancy. The first sentence communicates the core action and CLI mirror, the second adds behavioral nuance and effect on other tools. Every sentence 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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, storage location, effect on other tools, and what it does not do. No obvious gaps. Complete given the 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% with a clear description for 'path'. The description adds context about storage and relation to other tools but does not enhance parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. 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?

The description clearly states the tool persists a default workspace path to a config file, mirrors a known CLI command, and explicitly differentiates itself by noting it does NOT change the live API target, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_workspace and set_defaults.

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 explains when to use this tool (to persist a default path) and what it does not do (change live target), providing context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, leaving some ambiguity with sibling tool 'set_defaults'.

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