Ajustar tempo del proyecto

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

The description adds a behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it verifies that positions, durations, and playrate do not change. This clarifies side effects and reassures about non-destructive behavior, complementing the idempotentHint and destructiveHint annotations.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core action. It is efficient and contains no extraneous information.

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 simple tool with an output schema, the description covers the main action, but it does not explain the project_ref parameter, nor does it mention any prerequisites or error conditions. The missing parameter documentation prevents full self-contained completeness.

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?

The schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It explains the 'bpm' parameter implicitly but does not clarify what 'project_ref' is or how it should be formatted. This leaves a significant gap for one of two required parameters.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: adjusting project BPM and verifying that other properties remain unchanged. It is distinguished from sibling tools that operate on track-level settings (e.g., set_track_volume, set_track_pan).

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 description provides clear context about what the tool does (adjusts project tempo), making it obvious when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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