manage_workspace

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains the behavioral effect of 'switch' (routing subsequent operations) and mentions workspace isolation, which is useful context. However, it doesn't cover important aspects like permissions needed, error conditions, or what happens when switching fails.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences: the first states the dual purpose, the second provides usage guidance. Every word earns its place, and information is front-loaded effectively.

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 tool with 3 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides good context about workspace isolation and routing behavior. It could be more complete by explaining return values or error cases, but given the schema richness, it's mostly adequate.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters well. The description adds some value by clarifying that 'id' is required for switch and 'name' is an alternative, but this is largely redundant with the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('list available workspaces' and 'switch the active workspace') and distinguishes it from siblings by mentioning workspace isolation for mock configurations. It goes beyond the tool name by explaining the dual functionality.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use each action: 'Use "list" to see all workspaces, "switch" to route subsequent operations to a specific workspace.' This tells the agent exactly which action to choose based on the desired outcome.

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