Добавление сервера в проект

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds little beyond mentioning 'existing VPS server', which implies the operation is non-destructive. It does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as error conditions or side effects. No contradiction 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?

The description is only two sentences and immediately communicates the core purpose and the key alternative. There is no redundant information or filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate. It explains the action and provides a pointer to the related transfer tool. However, it does not mention potential prerequisites or behavior if the server is already attached to another project, which could be relevant. With good annotations, this is mostly complete.

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 provides descriptions for both required parameters ('project_id' and 'resource_id'), covering 100% of the parameters. The description does not add further meaning beyond the schema; it only repeats the concept of attaching a server to a project. Thus, 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Привязывает существующий VPS-сервер к проекту' (Attaches an existing VPS server to a project). It uses a specific verb ('привязывает') and resource ('VPS-сервер'), and distinguishes itself from the sibling 'transfer_project_resource' by explicitly noting that the latter is for transferring between projects.

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 gives explicit usage guidance by stating that for transferring a server between projects, one should use 'transfer_project_resource' instead. This clearly indicates when to use this tool (attaching an existing server to a project) and when to use an alternative (transfer).

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