Set Active Workspace

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key behavioral trait that this is a stateful setting affecting subsequent operations, which is real value beyond the schema. It does not cover persistence across sessions, permissions required, or what happens on an invalid workspaceId.

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 zero filler, with the core action and its effect front-loaded. Nothing is repeated or wasted.

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 one-parameter state setter this covers the essentials, but with no annotations and no output schema the description should say more about the effect of activation, its scope, and failure behavior. The stateful consequence is hinted at but not fully specified.

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% for the single workspaceId parameter, and the schema already explains it as 'ID of the workspace to set as active.' The description adds no format, source, or validation detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 for full schema coverage 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 (set) and resource (active workspace) and adds the scope 'for future operations,' so the agent understands this is a state mutation. It never names the closely related sibling set_active_board, so the boundary between workspace-level and board-level activation is left to inference.

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 'for future operations' implies this is a prerequisite state setter invoked before other calls, which is useful implied guidance. However, it gives no explicit when/when-not, no prerequisites (e.g., the workspace must exist), and does not point to set_active_board or list_workspaces as alternatives.

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