set_tempo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It helpfully discloses that the tempo change takes effect from the next bar and is bounded by the range from get_state, but it omits what happens for out-of-range values, whether the current bar is unaffected, and what the call returns.

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 front-loaded sentence that states the action, timing, and constraint with no wasted words. Every clause earns its place.

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 one-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key timing and range constraint. It remains incomplete about failure modes, return values, and whether other session state is affected.

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 0% description coverage for the single bpm parameter, so the description must compensate. It adds the important constraint that bpm must be within the range returned by get_state, but it does not clarify units, integer expectations, or edge behavior beyond the parameter name.

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 states a specific verb and resource: changing the session's tempo. It also specifies the timing ('from the next bar'), which distinguishes it from a generic setter, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like set_key.

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 'within the range get_state gives' implies a prerequisite to check get_state before calling, which is useful usage context. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives or what to do if the value is out of range.

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