mcp_opendaw_set_bpm

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, but it only states the action and gives no detail about side effects (e.g., whether existing tempo automation is overridden), required permissions, or return behavior. There is no mention of what changes occur beyond setting a value.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action, with no unnecessary words or repetition of schema fields.

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 single-parameter setter with an output schema, the description is minimally adequate but leaves gaps about interactions with tempo automation and project state. It is complete on the basic action but not on behavioral consequences or alternative use cases.

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 description adds 'project tempo' and 'BPM' context to the single required parameter, clarifying that the integer 'bpm' value represents the tempo in beats per minute. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this compensation is valuable, though no range or allowed values are given.

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 uses a specific verb ('Set') and identifies the resource ('project tempo') with the unit ('BPM'), clearly distinguishing it from tempo-related siblings like add_tempo_change or get_tempo_at. It is a concise statement of the tool's primary action.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as mcp_opendaw_add_tempo_change, mcp_opendaw_list_tempo_changes, or mcp_opendaw_detect_bpm. The description implies only the basic use case and offers no exclusions or prerequisites.

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