authorize_workspace

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

Annotations only cover the safety triad (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false). The description adds real behavioral context: the authorization is reusable, expires when the process ends, does not grant dangerous permissions, and must not receive source-code content. It stops short of describing failure modes or how to revoke/inspect the granted authorization.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the critical gating condition before the behavioral details. Every clause carries information, though the density makes it slightly harder to scan than a two-sentence split would.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema and thin annotations, the description adequately covers calling condition, scope, lifetime, and the forbidden payload. It does not state what the issued authorization returns or how the agent subsequently consumes it, which is a modest remaining gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate: it explains that both read-only and workspace-write pass only location and scope and never source text, which clarifies the purpose of the `permission` enum values and constrains `workspace`. It still does not define the expected format of `workspace` (path vs. identifier) or the default when `permission` is omitted.

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 (issue/bind authorization) and resource (a precise workspace) and clarifies it binds the current MCP conversation to that workspace. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like reauthenticate_cursor or doctor, though the description never names those siblings explicitly to sharpen the distinction.

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?

"仅当用户在当前对话明确要求...时调用" gives a clear, explicit gating condition for when to invoke the tool. It does not name alternative tools or state when *not* to use it beyond the user-request precondition, but the precondition is unambiguous.

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