transport_set_tempo

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

Adds genuinely non-obvious behavior beyond the annotations: arrangement clips keep their musical position (i.e., audio/MIDI stays musically aligned rather than shifting in time) and the change is undoable. The undoability note reinforces destructiveHint=false, but the clip-position consequence is information the annotation set does not carry.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, and the core action plus range are front-loaded ahead of the secondary side-effect and undo notes.

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 one-parameter mutation with full schema coverage, annotation coverage, and no output schema, the description supplies what remains: valid range, side effect on arrangement clips, and reversibility. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter documents its type, required status, and 40-240 bounds inline; the description only restates the range. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the full burden and the description adds no new meaning.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Set the project tempo in BPM") with an explicit value range, so the agent knows exactly what changes. It does not distinguish itself from near-siblings like tempo_set_map or tempo_set_time_signatures, which also mutate tempo-related state.

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 only implied by the verb: the agent can infer this is for a single flat tempo value rather than a tempo map, but the description never says when to prefer it over tempo_set_map or how it interacts with tempo_get. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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