Перенос ресурса в другой проект

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive action. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond what the name and schema already convey—it does not mention side effects, prerequisites, reversibility, or what happens to the resource after transfer. The resource type list is duplicated from the schema enum, adding no new transparency.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the core action and supported resource types. It is compact, but the added note 'resource_type обязателен' is redundant with the schema and does not earn its place, preventing a perfect score.

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?

Although the schema and annotations are rich, the description is minimal for a state-changing transfer operation. It omits important context such as whether the resource is removed from the source project, any restrictions on transferring between project types, or potential service disruption during the move. This leaves the agent without sufficient operational expectations.

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 description coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already documented. The description only reiterates that resource_type is required, which is already in the schema's required fields list, and lists resource types that match the enum. No additional parameter meaning is provided, so the baseline score 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 uses a specific verb 'переносит' (transfers) and clearly identifies the resource types (server, DB, balancer, storage, cluster, dedicated) being moved between projects. This clearly distinguishes the tool from related siblings like add_server_to_project or transfer_bucket, which handle different operations or resource types.

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 the tool is used when a resource needs to be moved from one project to another, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives such as add_*_to_project or transfer_bucket. The 'resource_type обязателен' note is a parameter constraint, not usage guidance.

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