Добавление хранилища в проект

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

Annotations provide a basic safety profile (not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent), and the description adds the prerequisite that the bucket must already exist. However, it does not disclose failure behavior, duplicate handling, or external side effects hinted by openWorldHint.

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 a single, terse sentence that conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and easily scannable.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the core action but omits what a successful result looks like or idempotency behavior. Given the openWorldHint, it would be stronger to state external side effects or return format.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the schema with required-field labels and IDs, so the description adds no additional parameter semantics. The schema already covers the meaning of project_id and resource_id adequately.

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 states a specific action: attaching an existing S3 bucket to a project. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_bucket or transfer_bucket, which serve different purposes.

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 implies the tool is for associating an already-existing bucket with a project, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. Siblings like transfer_bucket could overlap in context, and the description does not clarify the distinction.

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