create_wrangle

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely meets it by disclosing that this is a last-resort mutation with mandatory justification and clear prohibitions. It does not mention side effects such as existing node overwrite behavior or return values, but it does disclose the high-risk purpose and guardrails effectively.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and the most important constraint ('LAST RESORT), then gives compact, meaningful parameter documentation. The emphatic warnings are repetitive but purposeful and directly prevent misuse rather than padding.

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 creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main call requirements: when to use, how to justify, and every parameter's meaning. It omits concrete return-value expectations and error behavior, but the usage contract is detailed enough that an agent can invoke and validate appropriately.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate, and it does by explaining all five parameters in the Args list. It adds real value by specifying run_over's allowed values and by detailing exactly what justification must contain, which goes beyond the schema's bare parameter 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?

The description states the specific operation: creating an Attribute Wrangle node with VEX code and immediately scopes VEX to attribute math that no native node expresses. This clearly distinguishes it from generic node creation and from sibling tools like create_vex_expression or set_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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('VEX is for attribute math that no node expresses') and explicit when-not-to-use exclusions (never for modeling, scattering, copying, deforming, grouping, or randomizing). It also mandates a justification workflow via list_node_types, giving the agent a concrete decision procedure before invoking the tool.

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