convoy_batch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well on the core contract: targets run independently, may run concurrently, results preserve input order, partial success is possible, and there is explicitly no distributed atomicity or rollback. It omits auth requirements, per-target error behavior, and what the default-true 'wait' flag changes, so it is not a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the operation and fan-out scope, then the concurrency/ordering guarantee, then the explicit limitation. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 6-parameter batch tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the concurrency contract and some return-shape information (order preservation, partial success). It is still incomplete on parameter behavior (wait, override, timeout_s) and on how partial failures surface, which the agent needs to call it correctly.

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 only 17% (effectively just idempotency_key), so the description must compensate for six parameters and does not. It never explains wait, override, timeout_s, or expected_runtime_id, leaving the majority of the schema's meaning unstated.

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 ('Run one ordered Envoy batch on each explicit Convoy target'), and the fan-out framing distinguishes it from single-target siblings like convoy_call. It does not name a sibling or state explicitly what it is not, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied: the fan-out phrasing ('on each explicit Convoy target') signals this is for multi-target work versus a single-target call. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no stated prerequisites, and no named alternative among the many convoy_* siblings.

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