rabbitmq_unbind_queue

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the write-protection gate that can block the call, which is genuinely useful context, but it omits reversibility (re-bind), error behavior when the binding does not exist, and any auth/scope details beyond the gate.

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?

One sentence of purpose front-loaded first, followed by a compact @param block and a @return line. Every line maps to a real field or behavior and there is no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so the terse @return note is sufficient and return values need not be expanded. For a 5-parameter mutation with zero schema coverage, the description covers purpose, all parameters, defaults, and the write gate; the only meaningful gap is not routing the agent to bind_queue or explaining failure modes.

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 carries the full burden, and it delivers: every one of the 5 parameters gets a meaning plus defaults for routing_key ('') and connection ('default'). No format, alias-list, or argument-shape detail is added, but the semantic mapping is complete.

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 states a specific verb and resource: '解除队列与指定交换机之间的路由绑定' (remove the routing binding between a queue and a specified exchange). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling rabbitmq_bind_queue by operation direction, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

It discloses a real gating condition — the tool is subject to the global write-protection gate (--allow-write) — which tells the agent when the call will be blocked. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose unbind over bind, or on prerequisites such as the binding existing first.

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