create_vhost

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a mutation (creation) but discloses nothing about permissions required, whether the name must be unique, idempotency on repeat calls, or default vhost existence — all material for a create operation.

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?

A single short phrase is front-loaded and contains no filler, which is structurally clean. But it is terse to the point of under-specification for a mutating tool rather than genuinely efficient communication.

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 simple two-parameter create tool with full schema coverage, the schema covers the inputs adequately. But with no annotations and no output schema, an agent receives no information about side effects, error conditions (e.g. duplicate name), or what the call returns — gaps the description should have filled.

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 100%, with both parameters (name, description) documented in the schema itself, including the default for description. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

"创建虚拟主机" names a specific verb (create) and resource (virtual host), so the basic action is unambiguous. However, it offers no differentiation from siblings such as delete_vhost or the other create_* tools beyond the noun itself, and the title is null so nothing else disambiguates.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites, ordering relative to create_exchange/create_queue, or conditions like name collisions. An agent gets only the verb and must infer context entirely from the name.

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