live_set_tempo

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

The description discloses the default value for 'confirm' (true) and the BPM range, but does not explain what the 'confirm' parameter does, what happens if BPM is out of range, or any side effects like whether the change is immediate or requires confirmation. Without annotations, additional behavioral details are needed.

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, with one sentence that front-loads the core purpose and key parameter details. However, it sacrifices clarity on 'confirm' for brevity.

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 tool with two parameters and an output schema, the description covers purpose and a default value but omits behavioral details (e.g., what confirm does, error handling). It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 adds basic meaning: 'bpm' is the tempo value with a range, and 'confirm' has a default. However, it does not clarify the role of 'confirm' (e.g., whether it's a safety flag or triggers a dialog). This is minimally helpful but incomplete.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('Live's tempo'), and includes the BPM range (20..999). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like live_get_tempo.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives is provided. While it's obvious for setting tempo, there is no mention of related tools (e.g., live_get_tempo) or scenarios where this tool should be avoided.

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