Привязка ресурса к группе firewall

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations by describing the consequence of linking ('правила группы начинают действовать на ресурс') and the current resource-type restriction. It does not contradict the readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, or destructiveHint 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?

Two brief, information-dense sentences. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition. The structure is easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 parameters, full schema coverage, annotations provided), the description covers the core purpose and effect. It does not elaborate on edge cases like repeated linking, but the idempotentHint=false annotation hints at that, making this nearly complete for a simple mutation tool.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented. The description's mention of 'сейчас только сервер' is redundant with the resource_type enum, and no additional parameter-specific meaning is added beyond what the schema provides.

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 ресурс') and the target ('к группе правил firewall'), and it includes a scope constraint ('сейчас только сервер'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like unlink_firewall_resource by describing the linking direction and the effect of rules applying.

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 when to use the tool (to attach a resource to a firewall group) and notes the server-only limitation, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or give 'when not to use' guidance. It lacks reference to the sibling unlink tool or prerequisites.

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