validate_vex

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the node is cooked and errors are checked, which is useful behavioral detail. However, it does not state side effects of cooking, what happens when errors are found, or how results are returned.

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 concise and front-loaded, with no filler. The purpose statement is followed immediately by the only parameter explanation, and every sentence contributes useful information.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should clarify what the caller receives after validation. It never explains whether the tool returns a boolean, error messages, or raises an exception, and it omits any mention of cooking side effects or node prerequisites.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description compensates by documenting the single parameter: 'node_path: Path to the wrangle node.' This adds the important constraint that the path must point to a wrangle node, beyond the schema's bare 'Node Path' title.

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 and resource: 'Validate VEX code' by 'cooking the node and checking for errors.' This clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_node_errors_detailed or find_error_nodes by emphasizing validation through cooking.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or preconditions. The intended use is only implied by the tool name and action phrase, so an agent receives no routing help.

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