create_wrangle

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the action ('create') without explaining side effects, network placement, error conditions, or any requirements beyond the parent path. There is no contradiction, but transparency is minimal.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and object, and contains no filler or redundant information. Every word earns its place, making it an effective concise structure.

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 create tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is under-specified. It omits important context such as how the parent_path is used, what wrangle_type values are valid, and what the tool returns. This leaves significant gaps for the agent to navigate.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the parameters. It only mentions 'optional initial code,' which clarifies the 'code' parameter, but leaves parent_path (required), name, and wrangle_type unexplained. This is inadequate compensation for the missing schema-level descriptions.

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 states a specific verb ('create') and resource ('VEX wrangle node') with an optional initial code qualifier. This clearly distinguishes it from generic node creation (create_node) and wrangle code editing tools (set_wrangle_code, get_wrangle_code).

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?

The description implies usage for creating a wrangle node but provides no explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance. It does not mention when to prefer this over create_vex_expression or how it relates to set_wrangle_code, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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