convoy_save_artifact

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 existing files are preserved unless overwrite is true, and that project root is derived rather than caller-selected. However, it says nothing about authorization/permission requirements, timeout behavior, what verification entails, or failure modes for a 7-param mutating tool.

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 focused sentences, front-loaded with the action. The middle sentence about project derivation is a bit awkward but earns its place by clarifying scope. 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?

A mutating, multi-parameter tool with nested object input, no annotations, no output schema, and 14% schema coverage demands substantially more behavioral context than provided. Verification semantics, timeout behavior, permission/auth needs, and the artifact object's structure are absent.

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 14%, so only the filename field and overwrite semantics are covered between description and schema. The description explains overwrite and the derived project root, but target_host_id, convoy_id, target_node_id, artifact (nested), and timeout_s are semantically undocumented in both places.

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 action (verify and save) and a specific resource (a Convoy artifact into the bridge project's .embody/convoy/artifacts directory). Differentiates from the sibling convoy_get_artifact, which presumably retrieves rather than persists. Not a tautology, though scope phrasing is slightly convoluted.

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?

Implies when the tool is used (verifying and persisting an artifact locally) but never names an alternative such as convoy_get_artifact or states explicit when-not conditions. Adequate but leaves the agent to infer the distinction from the sibling list.

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