set_beat_repeat_interval

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that ambiguous or unavailable labels fail closed, that execution rechecks the device/routing/transport snapshot, and that the result reports observed parameter equality rather than an audible outcome. This is honest, specific behavioral context that an agent cannot infer from readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false.

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 dense sentences deliver purpose, data source, failure behavior, and verification semantics with no filler. The most important information is front-loaded in the first sentence, and every clause 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 7-parameter, no-output-schema mutation tool, the description covers the critical context: where valid values come from, what 'request' executes, failure behavior, and what the tool reports. It does not describe the exact response envelope or error format, but the schema already documents parameters, and the behavioral statements are sufficient for an agent to plan and execute correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value by tying intervalDisplayValue to the exact values from get_beat_repeat_performance_context.intervalChoices and by clarifying that native labels are mapped without quantization assumptions, which sharpens the meaning of the parameter beyond the schema's brief example.

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 states a specific verb ('Plan or request') and a precise resource: an exact native Beat Repeat Interval display drawn from get_beat_repeat_performance_context.intervalChoices. It is clear and distinguishes itself from related Beat Repeat operations by focusing on the display value rather than enabling or grid settings, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: it should be used to set one exact interval display value sourced from intervalChoices, and it explicitly disclaims assumptions about quantized parameters or scheduled triggers. It does not explicitly state 'use X instead when...', but the sourcing constraint and fail-closed behavior effectively guide appropriate use.

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