convoy_restart_node

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful traits: the target node must be 'running', require_clean refuses dirty/unsaved/unverifiable state, save_then_restart saves first, and destructive policies are unavailable. It omits other behavioral concerns such as idempotency, concurrency via expected_runtime_id, and timeout/blocking behavior.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action followed by policy semantics; essentially no filler. Slightly compressed wording ('one exact running') costs a little clarity but overall it is well-sized.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers purpose and policy but leaves the required expected_runtime_id, the four required identity parameters, and the idempotency/timeout controls unexplained. Insufficient for the tool's complexity.

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 description must compensate for all 8 parameters, yet it only explains the `policy` enum values. target_host_id, convoy_id, target_node_id, expected_runtime_id, wait, timeout_s, and idempotency_key receive no meaning beyond their names, leaving most of the parameter surface undocumented.

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 (Restart) and resource (TouchDesigner node) with a clear scope: 'one exact running' node. This implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling restart_td (whole-instance restart) and convoy_start_node, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 policy explanation ('default require_clean ... save_then_restart explicitly saves first') implies when each mode is appropriate, giving useful selection context. However, it never states when to choose this tool over siblings like restart_td, convoy_start_node, or convoy_forget_node, nor any prerequisites.

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