rabbitmq_declare_exchange

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only states 'Declare a new exchange' and omits critical behavioral details such as idempotency (what happens if the exchange already exists), durability implications, or error behavior. This is severely under-transparent for a resource-creating 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?

The description is a single short sentence with no filler, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise, resembling the 'Process' example. It fails to include essential usage or behavioral context that a complete tool description should contain.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and a single-sentence description, the tool lacks contextual completeness. It does not explain what 'declare' means in RabbitMQ, whether it is safe to call repeatedly, what properties are required, or what the result is. The rich sibling context and schema cannot compensate for the missing high-level guidance.

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 each parameter (durable, exchange_name, exchange_type) having a description and exchange_type listing an enum. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the schema already provides sufficient semantics, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 uses the specific verb 'declare' and identifies the resource as 'exchange', clearly indicating it creates/configures an exchange. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like rabbitmq_declare_queue, the resource name is sufficient to differentiate it.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rabbitmq_list_exchanges or rabbitmq_delete_exchange. The description provides no context about preconditions (e.g., needing an active connection) or scenarios for which this tool is appropriate.

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