Добавление БД в проект

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, indicating a mutating but non-destructive operation. The description adds that the database must be 'existing', clarifying this is an association rather than creation. It does not disclose potential side effects or reversibility, but given annotation coverage, this is acceptable.

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 is front-loaded with the core action. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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?

The tool is simple, with only two well-documented parameters and comprehensive annotations. The description sufficiently communicates the purpose and adds the nuance that the database must already exist. While it doesn't mention return values or error cases, no output schema is present, and the operation is straightforward, making the description complete enough for this context.

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% for both parameters (project_id and resource_id), so the schema fully documents them. The description adds no parameter-level details, and per the rubric, baseline 3 applies when schema coverage is high.

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 'Привязывает существующую managed-БД к проекту' clearly states the specific action (links/binds) and resource (existing managed database) to a project. It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_server_to_project or add_cluster_to_project by specifying 'existing managed-БД', making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. However, the tool name and description imply it is for linking existing databases, which is implied rather than stated. There are no exclusions or mentions of alternative tools, so the usage context is only inferred.

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