create_vex_expression

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects and behavior, but it only says 'Create a wrangle.' It does not clarify whether a new SOP node is created, whether parent_path must exist, whether existing attributes are overwritten, or how errors are handled. The absence of such details leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately states the action and purpose, making it easy to parse. While brevity means missing details, the structure itself is appropriately concise.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and four parameters, the description is too sparse for reliable use. It does not explain return values, node creation behavior, run_over semantics, or how this relates to sibling wrangle tools. The information provided is a starting point but insufficient for complete understanding.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It mentions 'VEX expression' and 'attribute,' which map to expression and attrib_name, but parent_path and run_over are left unexplained. Parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds minimal semantic value for the required context.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Create a wrangle that evaluates a VEX expression into an attribute.' It clearly states the tool's core function and distinguishes it from more generic wrangle creation by emphasizing the expression-to-attribute behavior. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the closely related 'create_wrangle' sibling, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_wrangle, set_wrangle_code, or evaluate_expression. The description implies a use case (creating a wrangle for expression evaluation), but it does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or when another tool would be more appropriate.

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