set_tempo

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

Annotations provide destructiveHint=false, and the description clarifies that this modifies the project tempo. It does not add deeper behavioral detail such as whether the change affects playback, timebase, or undo state, but the core behavior is transparent and consistent with the annotation.

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 extremely concise: one clear action and one well-defined argument. The Args block is easy to parse and contains no filler or redundant 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 single-parameter mutator with no output schema, the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. It could mention accepted BPM range or return behavior, but those are optional details for a tool this straightforward.

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 input schema only says bpm is a number, but the description explains that bpm means 'Tempo in beats per minute,' adding essential semantic meaning and units. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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: 'Set the project tempo.' It clearly distinguishes this setter from the sibling read-only tool get_tempo, so an agent can tell them apart by intent 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?

The purpose is immediately clear: use this tool when you want to change the project tempo. It does not enumerate alternatives or exclusions, but for a simple one-parameter setter the context is obvious and no misleading guidance is present.

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