Добавление балансировщика в проект

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

Annotations already indicate a mutating operation (readOnlyHint=false), and the description aligns by saying 'attaches'. It adds the qualifier 'existing' and distinguishes from transfer, giving some behavioral context. However, it does not disclose potential side effects or failure conditions, but no contradictions with annotations.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the main action. The second sentence earns its place by directing users to the correct alternative tool. No redundant 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 simple 2-parameter attach operation with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and distinction from transfer. It is complete for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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 provides detailed descriptions for both required parameters (project_id and resource_id). The description reinforces that the balancer must be existing, adding minimal value beyond the schema. Coverage is 100%, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the specific verb 'Привязывает' (attaches) and identifies the resource (existing balancer) and target (project), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_database_to_project. It also explicitly notes the tool works with an existing balancer, not a new one.

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?

Explicitly states the use case: attaching an existing balancer to a project. It provides a direct alternative for a different scenario: 'Для переноса между проектами используй transfer_project_resource' (use transfer_project_resource for transfers between projects). This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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