convoy_call

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the target is always explicit and that there is no silent local TouchDesigner fallback, which is real behavioral context, but it omits failure semantics, auth/connectivity requirements, and what the remote relay actually returns.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and free of filler. It is efficient, though arguably too sparse given the tool's complexity.

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 tool with 9 parameters, nested arguments, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin. It never explains operation semantics, the arguments payload, timeout/retry behavior, or what a call returns, leaving the agent under-equipped to invoke 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 coverage is only 22% (9 params, only wait and idempotency_key documented), so the description should compensate but largely does not. It references the target concept by 'host_id and node_id', which hints at target_host_id/target_node_id, yet leaves operation, convoy_id, arguments, timeout_s, and expected_runtime_id unexplained.

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 ('Relay one Envoy operation to an explicit Embody node'), which an agent can distinguish from convoy_batch ('one' operation vs. batch) and from node-management siblings. It does not explicitly name the alternative it contrasts with, but the action is 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?

There is no explicit when-to-use / when-not guidance and no sibling is named as an alternative, so routing decisions among convoy_call, convoy_batch, and convoy_start_node must be inferred. The 'never silently falls back' line clarifies routing behavior rather than selection criteria.

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