rabbitmq_declare_exchange

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the write-gate constraint and the default for each option, but omits key mutation semantics: whether re-declaring an existing exchange is idempotent, what happens on a conflicting declaration, and whether failures raise errors. Return value is covered by the @return note and an output schema exists.

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 purpose and the write-gate constraint are front-loaded in the first two lines, followed by a compact @param list and a one-line @return. Standard code-doc structure, no filler sentences, though the @-tag formatting is slightly verbose for an agent-facing description.

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 7-parameter write tool with no annotations, the description covers the operation, the gating precondition, all option defaults, and the return type; the output schema handles return structure. The only substantive omission is idempotency/error behavior on redeclaration, which keeps it below a 5.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it documents all seven parameters, gives the allowed exchange type values (direct, fanout, topic, headers), and states defaults for type, durable, auto_delete, internal, and connection. It adds little detail on the 'arguments' extension map, which is the one remaining gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('受控声明交换机' / declare exchange) plus scope ('在 Broker 中受控'), which is clear and distinct from siblings like rabbitmq_delete_exchange or rabbitmq_declare_queue. It stops short of naming which sibling to use instead, but the verb+resource pairing is 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 line about being bound by the global write-protection gate (--allow-write) is a real precondition an agent must satisfy. However, there is no statement of when to declare vs. reuse, no alternatives named, and no guidance on what to do if the exchange already exists.

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