manage_workspace

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds little beyond annotations: 'Verified' is opaque, and the 'special-workspace semantics' note is a minor behavioral hint. For a destructive tool that can rename workspaces and move windows, it never discloses what state is altered or lost, nor the role of confirmation_token.

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 tight sentences with no filler, and the primary purpose is front-loaded. The density comes at some cost to readability, but every clause carries intended meaning.

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 8 parameters, a 10-way action enum, and destructive semantics, a two-sentence description with no output schema is materially incomplete. An agent cannot determine which action/parameter combination to use or what destruction means without opening the schema.

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 only 25% across 8 params, so the description must compensate but does not. It loosely gestures at actions (switch/create-or-activate/rename/move) but never explains the 10-value action enum, nor workspace, target, follow, address, or new_name. Only the schema-described confirmation_token carries meaning.

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 names a specific resource (Hyprland workspaces) and enumerates operations: switch, create-or-activate, rename, and targeted window move. This is clearly distinguishable from a generic tool, though it never contrasts itself with siblings like manage_window or list_workspaces. The compressed phrasing ('Verified Hyprland workspace...') is understandable but not maximally crisp.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as manage_window, list_workspaces, or activate. No prerequisites, ordering, or action-selection guidance is given beyond the bare operation names. The 'special' clause describes semantics but not when to invoke the tool.

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