Set project tempo

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action (set) but does not mention potential side effects, whether the project must be open, or what the tool returns. For a simple mutation tool, the description is minimal but not misleading. It could add that it modifies the global project tempo or that it requires an active project, but the absence of these details is a moderate 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?

The description is a single, clear sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, and every word earns its place.

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 tool with one parameter, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is adequate. It does not explain prerequisites (e.g., project must be open) or return behavior, but these are minor given the tool's simplicity. An agent can safely call it knowing it sets the tempo.

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 schema already provides full coverage (100%) for the single parameter 'bpm', including its description ('Beats per minute') and constraints (exclusiveMinimum 0). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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'), names the exact resource ('project master tempo'), and specifies the unit (BPM). It clearly distinguishes itself from the many sibling setter tools because tempo is a unique target not covered by any other sibling.

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 description makes the tool's purpose obvious, so an agent can infer when to use it (whenever the project tempo needs to be changed). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but given the tool's uniqueness among siblings (no other tempo-related tool exists), this is acceptable. A small mention of 'use this instead of other setter tools' would have made it a 5.

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