set_workspace

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that this is a state-changing operation (sets the workspace), scopes the effect to session files, imposes explicit validation rules (existing, writable, not root/home), and notes the return type. This is substantial, though it does not mention failure behavior or reversibility. The stated validation and effect coverage merit a strong score.

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 with no filler. The first sentence states the primary purpose, the second covers constraints and return. Information is front-loaded and every clause earns its place. This is an exemplary concise definition.

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 setter with no output schema, the description covers the essential points: purpose, constraints, return type, and session scope. It omits error handling details, but given the simplicity and the constraints already provided, an agent has sufficient information to call it correctly. Minor gaps remain, such as effects on existing files, but overall it is well-rounded.

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 already describes the path parameter, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful constraints beyond the schema: 'existing, writable', 'other than the filesystem root or the home directory itself'. This enriches the parameter's meaning and helps the agent avoid invalid inputs, exceeding what the schema alone provides.

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 verb 'Set' and the resource 'workspace folder', and specifies what files it affects (scratch files, bridge, call logs). This distinguishes it from likely read-only siblings like workspace_info or scan_workspace, leaving no ambiguity about its function.

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 constraints for the path (existing, writable, not root/home) and states the return value, giving some usage context. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like workspace_info (to query) or scan_workspace (to scan), nor does it indicate when in a workflow it should be called. The intended usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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