declare_queue

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the undo behavior (undo deletes it only if new), records whether the queue already existed, and supports dry_run preview. The inline [WRITE][risk=medium] header also telegraphs side effects. No contradiction with structured annotations (none exist).

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 reasonably compact, with a two-sentence summary followed by a bullet-style Args list. The opening includes a safety header and the body includes only relevant behavioral notes; no verbosity.

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?

It covers purpose, behavioral details, and all parameters, but does not describe the return value or output of the tool, which is significant given there is no output schema. It also omits any mention of prerequisites or error conditions, leaving some gaps.

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 descriptions are absent (0% coverage), so the Args section is the only source of parameter semantics. It explains all seven parameters, including defaults and examples (e.g., x-arguments), fully compensating for the schema's lack.

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 it declares (creates) a RabbitMQ queue, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like delete_queue and list_queues by adding 'undo deletes it if new'.

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 mentions it is 'the replay target for delete_queue's undo', which provides a specific use case context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over other queue operations or when not to use it, so usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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