set_time_signature

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add one genuinely useful behavioral fact not present in the schema: the denominator is constrained to 2, 4, 8 or 16. It says nothing about whether the change is reversible, requires a stopped transport, or affects existing patterns/clips.

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?

A single short sentence, front-loading the action and appending the only constraint in parentheses. Nothing is wasted, though the space saved is partly what creates the gaps elsewhere.

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 two-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action and one validation rule. It stops short of what an agent needs on numerator values and on side effects to existing project state.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it only half does: it constrains 'denominator' to 2/4/8/16 but leaves 'numerator' completely undefined (no range, no typical values like 3, 6, 7). The stronger of the two parameters is undocumented in both schema and description.

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 ('Set') and resource ('time signature'), which is clearly distinct from set_tempo and set_project_settings in the sibling list. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the resource is unambiguous enough that an agent can route correctly.

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 gives no guidance on when to call this versus set_tempo or set_project_settings, nor any preconditions such as stopping transport or whether existing clips are re-metered. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name.

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