create_wrangle

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

With no annotations, description discloses key behaviors: immediate cooking, a validation report, and removal of the node on invalid input. These go beyond basic creation semantics, though it doesn't detail permissions or exact return shape.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose; every sentence adds value (create, params, validation/cleanup). No redundancy or 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?

Covers creation, parameter hints, validation reporting, and failure cleanup, which is strong for a tool without annotations or output schema. Could be more explicit about the return value structure, but overall complete.

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 has 0% description coverage, but description explicitly explains run_over allowed values, input_node wiring, and vex_code snippet. parent_path and name remain implicit but are self-evident from names.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Create' and resource 'Attribute Wrangle SOP', clearly distinguishing from generic create_node and from set_wrangle_code/validate_vex. The scope and optional input wiring are explicitly stated.

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?

Implies use case for creating a new wrangle with VEX and checking validation, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like set_wrangle_code or validate_vex. Still provides clear context for when the tool is appropriate.

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