convoy_start_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 disclose a meaningful behavioral trait: no executable, path, argv, or environment is accepted, so the launch profile is host-pinned and not caller-controlled. It still omits failure behavior, whether 'wait' blocks, timeout/idempotency semantics, and auth requirements, so the disclosure is partial rather than rich.

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 tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by the security constraint. No filler or repetition.

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 mutation-style start operation with no annotations, no output schema, and six fully undocumented parameters leaves significant gaps: nothing about return values, success/failure signals, timeout defaults, or idempotency behavior. The security note is valuable but does not cover the operational surface an agent needs.

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 six parameters, and the description explains none of them. target_host_id, convoy_id, and target_node_id are at least implied by 'host-pinned launch profile' and 'previously registered node', but wait, timeout_s, and idempotency_key receive no explanation anywhere.

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?

Names a specific verb (start) and resource (a previously registered offline TouchDesigner node from its host-pinned launch profile), which is more precise than a generic launch tool. The 'offline, previously registered' qualifier implicitly distinguishes it from restart-style siblings, but no sibling is named explicitly, 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?

The phrase 'previously registered offline' implies a precondition (the node must already exist and be stopped), which gives usable context. However, it never states when to prefer this over convoy_restart_node, restart_td, or launch_td, leaving the selection to inference.

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