create_wrangle

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the mandatory justification gate and the intended usage discipline, but says nothing about mutation side effects, whether the node is cooked/validated, or what happens on invalid VEX. Adequate but incomplete for a write operation with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then the critical usage constraint, then Args. The warning block is longer than typical but all of it is actionable and justifies its space by preventing misuse.

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 5-param creation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage gating, and every parameter. It stops short of describing failure modes or post-creation state, keeping it from a 5.

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 Args section does the work: it defines parent_path, vex_code, justification semantics, node name, and enumerates run_over values ('Points', 'Vertices', 'Primitives', 'Detail', 'Numbers') that the schema lacks. This meaningfully compensates for the empty schema 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create an Attribute Wrangle node with VEX code') and implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like set_wrangle_code and create_vex_expression by scoping to node creation. An agent can immediately tell what this produces.

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?

Explicitly frames the tool as a LAST RESORT, names the categories it must never be used for (modeling, scattering, copying, deforming, grouping, randomizing), and instructs the agent to run list_node_types first. This is textbook when/when-not/alternatives guidance.

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