toggle_special

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining side effects. It states that the tool 'Toggle[s]' a workspace, which implies a state change, but it does not disclose what changes: visibility, active status, or existence, nor whether the operation can create or destroy the scratchpad.

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 one concise sentence with no filler. 'Toggle' states the action, 'special (scratchpad) workspace' defines the resource, and 'by name' identifies the input, making the structure front-loaded and efficient.

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?

This is a state-changing operation with no annotations and only minimal behavioral disclosure. An agent cannot tell whether toggling a nonexistent name is an error, whether this overlaps with switch_workspace, or what the expected output represents. The description is adequate as a label but not as complete invocation guidance.

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 for the lone `name` parameter. It does clarify that `name` is used as the workspace's name, not an ID, which adds a small amount of meaning beyond the schema. However, it stops short of explaining expected format, exact-match behavior, or what happens when the name is unknown.

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 uses a specific verb ('Toggle') and identifies the exact resource ('special (scratchpad) workspace') plus the selection criterion ('by name'). It is distinguishable from siblings like switch_workspace and list_workspaces, though it relies on the domain term 'scratchpad' rather than explicitly contrasting it with those alternatives.

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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool instead of switch_workspace or list_workspaces, nor what qualifies as a 'special' workspace. It also does not state prerequisites, such as whether the named scratchpad must already exist or whether this is the canonical way to show/hide a scratchpad.

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