convoy_update_embody

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 well: it discloses the sha256-pinned manifest, downgrade-refusing behavior, durable per-node job dispatch, returned handles, and the auth note ('without the TD Python grant'). It omits failure modes, reversibility, and what the handles actually contain, so not a full 5.

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 purpose and scope, then behavior, then the prerequisite. Dense but every clause earns its place; slightly run-on but 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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, it explains the dispatch model, return handles, follow-up (poll convoy_get_job), and version prerequisite. The main gap is the unexplained convoy_id and timeout_s parameters and no error/failure behavior.

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 50%, so the description must compensate and only partially does: 'one node or the whole fleet' maps to the node/all parameters and the mutual exclusivity is confirmed in the schema. convoy_id and timeout_s receive no explanation in either place, leaving a 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 (self-update) and resource (Embody on Convoy nodes) with clear scope ('one node or the whole fleet'). An agent can distinguish it from siblings like convoy_restart_node or convoy_start_node without opening any schema.

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?

Clear context for when to use it: updating Embody to the latest release, scoped to one node or fleet, and it routes the agent to convoy_get_job for polling. It also names a prerequisite (Embody >= 6.0.257). However it doesn't state when-not to use it or contrast explicitly against alternative update paths.

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