Добавление выделенного сервера в проект

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the binding operation is understood as a mutation but not destructive. The description adds the context that the server is "existing," implying no creation. It does not disclose additional behavior like whether it replaces an existing project association or what happens if the server is already in a project, but given the annotations, 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 one short, focused sentence that immediately states the action and object. There is no unnecessary information, and it is front-loaded with the core verb.

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 binding operation with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficient. It does not explain the full implications of binding (e.g., resource listing changes), but the core behavior is clear. The sibling tool list provides additional context for disambiguation.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both required parameters (project_id and resource_id). The description does not add any extra semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 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 a specific verb "Привязывает" (binds) with a clear resource (existing dedicated server) and target (project), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_server_to_project or add_database_to_project. The title also says "Добавление выделенного сервера в проект" (Adding dedicated server to project), reinforcing the purpose.

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 clearly indicates this tool is for attaching an existing dedicated server to a project, which provides clear context. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or mention alternative tools for other resource types, leaving some ambiguity if the agent is unsure about dedicated vs. regular servers.

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