create_vex_expression

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

The description discloses that the tool is mutating, groups changes in a single undo step, returns an error if the parent is not Sop, and passes responses through apply_response_cap. However, it references parameter names 'snippet' and 'runover' that do not appear in the input schema (schema uses 'code' and 'attrib_class'), and the phrase 'apply_response_cap' is ambiguous. Since there are no annotations, the description carries full burden but the mismatch undermines transparency.

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 relatively short and structured, but includes an unclear tag 'add-node-parameter-vex-tools' and a cryptic statement about apply_response_cap. It could be more focused and front-loaded, but it is not excessively verbose.

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 that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description needs to cover parameters, usage, and behavior. It partially covers constraints and mutation but misses parameter explanations, usage vs alternatives, and return value semantics. Thus it's insufficient for confident invocation.

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?

The input schema has 5 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description only vaguely references 'snippet' and 'runover' without mapping them to 'code' and 'attrib_class'. It does list possible runover values but doesn't explain ctx, parent_path, or name. This is insufficient for an agent to understand how to populate the parameters.

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 clearly states it creates an Attribute Wrangle under a SOP parent, which is a specific action with a resource. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'create_wrangle' that likely has a similar purpose, so it gets 4 rather than 5.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_wrangle or set_wrangle_code. It only mentions a constraint (parent must be Sop), which is not a usage guideline. There are no references to alternative tools or exclusions.

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