Привязка плавающего IP к сервису

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond what the annotations already declare. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether the IP is detached from a previous service), error conditions, idempotency implications, or response behavior. Given idempotentHint=false and the write nature, the agent gets no insight into potential failures or state changes. The description merely restates the action without enriching the safety/behavioral profile.

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, front-loaded with the active verb 'Привязывает', and includes the key scope (resource types) without any fluff. Every word earns its place; it is optimally compact.

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, the description covers the core action and the three parameters, but it lacks important context: prereqs, success expectations, and any behavioral caveats. With no output schema, the agent cannot anticipate the response format. The description is minimal but adequate for a straightforward action; however, it does not explain what happens on success or failure, leaving the agent with the bare essentials.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does repeat the resource_type enum values in parentheses, but these are already present in the schema. It adds no extra meaning for floating_ip_id or resource_id beyond what the schema says ('ID ресурса'). Thus it neither harms nor enhances parameter understanding.

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 a specific action: 'Привязывает плавающий IP к сервису' (binds floating IP to a service), and explicitly lists the supported resource types (server / balancer / database / network). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like unbind_floating_ip (opposite action) and add_server_ip (which likely adds a regular IP rather than binding a floating IP). The verb and resource are specific and 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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites. It does not mention that the floating IP must be unbound, that the resource must exist, or that this tool is for floating IPs specifically (as opposed to regular IP assignment via add_server_ip or add_balancer_ips). No explicit context for selection is given.

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