set_tempo

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

Annotations already declare this is a mutating but non-destructive, closed-world operation, and the description adds nothing beyond that mutating verb. It omits the valid BPM range, whether the change is persistent/undoable, and whether tempo changes affect playback or warping. For a mutation with only thin annotation coverage, this leaves real behavioral questions unanswered.

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?

One purpose sentence followed by a tidy parameter list; every line earns its place and the core action is front-loaded. Slightly more value could be packed into the same space, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the parameter meanings are covered. However, for a session-mutating tool with many transport-related siblings, the missing tempo range and the lack of any disambiguation against set_transport/set_arrangement_time leave a moderate completeness gap.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does: it specifies that tempo is in BPM (a unit the schema does not convey) and explains that user_prompt is the originating prompt used for telemetry. The only gap is the absence of a valid tempo range or clamping behavior.

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 tempo of the Ableton session'), which is unambiguous and immediately actionable. It does not distinguish itself from related siblings such as set_transport or set_arrangement_time, leaving the agent to infer the boundary on its own.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_transport, set_song_scale, or set_arrangement_time, nor any prerequisite or context statement. The only usage signal is implicit in the tool name.

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