set_active_workspace

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key behavioral trait: this is a stateful mutation whose effect applies to all subsequent commands, skills, and rules without a server restart. It omits error behavior for an invalid path and whether the switch persists, but the critical session-wide side effect is explicit.

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, front-loaded with the action and followed by the consequence, with no filler. Every clause carries information.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers purpose and the main runtime consequence. It could still note failure modes for an invalid path or how to enumerate known workspaces, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage including a concrete path example, so the schema already does the work. The description adds no further meaning about accepted path forms, absolute vs relative, or validation.

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 and resource ('switches the active workspace') plus the target scope ('another folder/repository on the user's machine') and the timing ('at runtime'). This clearly separates it from read-only siblings like list_known_workspaces, so an agent can pick it without inspecting schemas.

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 implies when the tool is relevant ('switches the active workspace... at runtime') and describes the downstream effect, but never states when NOT to use it or points to list_known_workspaces as the way to discover valid targets. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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