convoy_select_node

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: it discloses that the selection survives peer dropouts, never falls back to local TouchDesigner, and that clear restores direct routing. It omits auth/permission requirements and error or conflict behavior when a selection already exists.

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: the core action is front-loaded, followed by critical behavioral guarantees, then the argument shortcuts. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

No output schema or annotations exist, and 4 of 5 parameters are undocumented. The description conceptually completes the tool's role and behavior but leaves the parameter model (which IDs select the node) unexplained, which is a meaningful gap for a 5-param tool.

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% across 5 parameters. The description only explains clear (and the no-arg case); convoy_id, target_host_id, target_node_id, and expected_runtime_id are entirely undocumented, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 and resource: pinning this session's ordinary Envoy tool calls to one exact Convoy node. The purpose is clear and scoped to this MCP session. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like convoy_list_nodes or convoy_call, but the operation 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?

Gives two concrete usage modes: call with no arguments to inspect the selection, or clear=true to restore direct local routing. However, it does not say when to select a node versus leaving routing local, nor differentiate from related siblings such as convoy_list_nodes or convoy_get_status.

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