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 does disclose the key trait that an existing tempo change at the tick is replaced ('add/replace'), which is meaningful mutation context, but it says nothing about required project state, whether prior changes are lost elsewhere, or 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 English sentence is front-loaded and efficient, stating the default case before the parameterized case. The full bilingual duplication roughly doubles the length without adding information, which is the only structural weakness.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the conceptual behavior but omits prerequisites (an open project), valid bpm ranges, and any note on ordering of existing tempo changes. Enough to attempt a call, not enough to anticipate failure modes.

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%, so both parameters are bare titles. The description compensates partially by explaining the tick semantics (default 0 sets the base tempo; a nonzero tick creates or overwrites a change), but it never clarifies the unit, plausible range, or validation for 'bpm'.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Set the tempo') and clearly delimits two modes: setting the base tempo at tick 0 versus adding/replacing a tempo change at a given tick. It stops short of distinguishing itself from the sibling 'ustx_set_tempo', so an agent cannot rule that alternative out from the text alone.

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?

Usage is implied through the tick parameter: omit tick to set the initial tempo, supply tick to insert a change at that position. There is no explicit statement of when not to use this tool and no named alternative for related operations.

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