convoy_send_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses the default destination, the worktree/live path resolution, that live mode requires 'Allow Execute TD Python' on the target and why (.py reloads into TouchDesigner), and that existing files are kept unless overwrite is true. This covers both destructive-action semantics and auth requirements beyond structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then dense but earned clauses for each destination mode. It is a long paragraph, but nearly every clause conveys a distinct, non-redundant behavior; minor compression is possible in the nested worktree/live clauses.

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 10-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient on destination modes and permissions. It omits any explanation of timeout_s/idempotency_key semantics and the meaning of the convoy/host/node identifiers, leaving small but real gaps.

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 40%, so the description must compensate, and it adds real meaning: dest defaults to the file name for the inbox and the project-relative path otherwise, overwrite governs clobbering, and worktree/live/live-permission behavior is explained. It leaves convoy_id, target_host_id, target_node_id, timeout_s, and idempotency_key undocumented, but the parameters that determine destination semantics are well covered.

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+resource+scope: 'Send one file from this bridge's project to a Convoy node.' An agent immediately knows this is a single-file transfer to a remote node. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like convoy_save_artifact or convoy_get_artifact, which also move file-like payloads, so it stops 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?

Provides clear context for each destination mode (default inbox, worktree, live) and even routes the agent to convoy_call convoy_git worktree_add to create a worktree. However, it never states when to use this tool versus convoy_save_artifact or convoy_get_artifact, and offers no explicit exclusions.

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