Set Active Workspace

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

The description discloses that the tool affects future operations, which is a key behavioral trait. With no annotations provided, it carries the full burden, but it does not mention persistence, reversibility, or error handling, leaving some gaps.

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, focused sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. The clause 'for future operations' adds meaningful context without any waste.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description adequately states the core action. However, the lack of explicit usage guidelines and richer behavioral context keeps it at a minimally complete level.

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?

The schema fully describes the single parameter with 100% coverage, and the description adds no extra meaning beyond what is already in the schema. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema handles the semantics.

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 the specific verb 'Set' with the resource 'active workspace', clearly distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'set_active_board'. It concisely states the tool's function without ambiguity.

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 that this tool should be used before operations that depend on an active workspace, providing mild usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion cases.

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