rabbitmq_delete_exchange

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose a key safety mechanism: deletion requires secondary confirmation and otherwise yields a dry-run impact estimate. It still omits irreversibility, permission requirements, and what happens to bindings/messages, so it stops short of full disclosure.

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?

Content is front-loaded with the critical confirmation constraint before the parameter block, and the @param/@return structure makes it scannable. The @return line is marginally redundant given the output schema exists, but overall it is tight.

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 an output schema exists, return values need less prose, and the description still covers all four parameters plus the safety gate. It is complete enough to call correctly, with only permission/irreversibility context missing for a destructive operation.

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 @param documentation does the compensating work: confirm and if_unused are given real semantics and defaults, and connection explains the 'default' alias choice. The name parameter is only restated minimally, so it is thorough but not exhaustive.

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 (delete) and resource (exchange), with the qualifying scope '受控' (controlled) that signals the confirmation gate. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like rabbitmq_declare_exchange and rabbitmq_list_exchanges.

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 explains the two-phase confirm workflow (unconfirmed calls only return an impact report per ADR-0002), which is implicit usage guidance. However, it never names an alternative tool or states when-not-to-use versus peers like rabbitmq_purge_queue or rabbitmq_delete_queue, leaving routing to inference.

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