set_wrangle_code

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 implies a write/mutation operation but fails to mention side effects such as automatic cooking, whether the node must exist, or how the change might affect the scene. This is a gap for a mutation tool.

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, concise sentence with no redundant information. Every word serves a purpose, and it is front-loaded with the action and target.

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 two self-explanatory parameters and no output schema, the description could be acceptable if it mentioned key context. However, it lacks any note about node path conventions, code validation, automatic cooking behavior, or how this relates to sibling tools. This leaves important context undisclosed for a tool that modifies scene content.

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 description adds no meaning to the parameters beyond the schema. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the tool description does not explain what 'node_path' should look like (full vs. relative) or any encoding/formatting of 'code'. The burden is entirely on the schema, which is insufficient.

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 the action ('Set'), the object ('VEX code'), and the target ('wrangle node'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_wrangle_code (reading) and create_wrangle (creating a node), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_vex_expression or validate_vex. The description does not mention prerequisites like an existing wrangle node or the need for valid VEX syntax.

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