ustx_set_tempo

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden: it does not say whether an existing tempo change at that tick is overwritten or a duplicate added, whether bpm is clamped to a valid range, whether the file is written immediately, or what is returned. For a file-mutating tool with zero annotation coverage this is a substantial gap.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the key tick distinction, with no filler. The bilingual duplication doubles the length without adding information, which is the only waste.

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?

The core semantic (tick 0 vs tempo change) is covered, but for a three-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no schema descriptions, the definition leaves overwrite semantics, validation, and error conditions entirely unexplained.

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 the description must compensate. It does add real meaning for 'tick' by explaining that tick 0 means the file's base tempo and a non-zero tick means a tempo change, but it says nothing about 'path' (target file, format constraints) or the accepted range/units of '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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Set the tempo'), scopes it to a .ustx file, and distinguishes two modes ('at tick 0' vs 'a tempo change at a tick'). It does not differentiate this from the sibling 'set_tempo', so the agent cannot tell which tempo tool applies to which file format or context.

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 by the two modes described: use tick 0 for the file's base tempo, a non-zero tick for a tempo change. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this tool over 'set_tempo' or 'remove_tempo', nor any prerequisite such as the file needing to exist or be a valid project.

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