rabbitmq_publish_message

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real behavioral traits: the write gate requirement, automatic JSON serialization, persistence via delivery_mode, and a delivery-confirmation return. It stops short of failure semantics or whether the exchange must pre-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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the gate warning and a compact @param block. The @param repetition is justified because the schema carries zero descriptions, so little is wasted.

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 an 8-parameter write tool with no annotations but an output schema, the description documents every parameter and the write gate, leaving return values to the output schema. Minor behavioral gaps (error handling, exchange existence) remain but are not blocking.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it defines delivery_mode (1=non-persistent, 2=persistent), priority range (0-255), expiration units (ms as number or string), payload types (dict/list/str/bytes), and defaults for routing_key and connection. This goes well beyond what the bare schema conveys.

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+resource ('publish a message') with the addressing target (exchange + routing key), which cleanly separates it from the declare/bind/list siblings. An agent can identify this as the message-sending tool without opening the schema.

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 notes it is gated by the global write-protection flag (--allow-write), which is a genuine usage prerequisite, but it never states when to prefer this over alternatives or any when-not conditions. Usage is only implied by the tool's name.

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