Добавление кластера в проект

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

The description adds no behavioral detail beyond what annotations already provide. Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the verb 'attaches' aligns with those, but the description does not disclose edge cases such as whether the operation is idempotent, what happens if the cluster is already attached, or any prerequisites. Since annotations exist but the description contributes little extra context, a score of 2 is appropriate.

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, concise sentence that immediately states the action and object. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words, making it highly 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?

For a simple linking operation with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate. However, it omits potential contextual details such as idempotency, error conditions, or side effects that could matter during invocation. Given the simplicity, a mid-range score is reasonable.

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 100%, with both project_id and resource_id having clear descriptions. The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline for high coverage is 3, and there is no additional enrichment, so the score stays at 3.

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 clearly states the action: 'Привязывает существующий Kubernetes-кластер к проекту' (attaches an existing Kubernetes cluster to a project). This uses a specific verb and resource, and the phrase 'existing' distinguishes it from creation tools like create_k8s_cluster. It also aligns with sibling tools like add_balancer_to_project, making its purpose distinct.

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 usage scenario: when you need to associate an already-created Kubernetes cluster with a project. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, nor does it reference alternative tools such as create_k8s_cluster or list_all_project_clusters. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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