Подключение сетевого диска к сервису

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds beyond annotations by disclosing the zone constraint and pointing to the prerequisite list call. This context helps the agent avoid failed operations, which is valuable behavioral information.

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 exactly two sentences: the first states the action, the second adds a constraint and a useful reference to a prerequisite tool. No filler words, perfectly front-loaded, every sentence earns its place.

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 mutation tool with 3 fully described parameters, the description covers the essential context: what the operation does, the zone constraint, and how to discover valid resources. It doesn't discuss error cases or response formats, but no output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, so the overall package (description + schema + annotations) is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 has 100% coverage with each parameter described in detail: resource_id includes example and pointer to list_network_drive_available_resources, resource_type explains only 'server' is supported, and network_drive_id shows UUID. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 purpose: "Подключает сетевой диск к сервису (серверу)" — connects a network drive to a service/server. This specific verb+resource phrasing distinguishes it from the sibling tool unmount_network_drive, which does the reverse.

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 a key usage condition: "Сервис и диск должны быть в одной зоне доступности" (service and disk must be in the same availability zone), and directs users to list_network_drive_available_resources to find eligible resources. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with unmount_network_drive, the prerequisite guidance is clear and actionable.

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