set_tempo

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

Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'plan or set' without explaining side effects (e.g., whether tempo changes take effect immediately, if it requires a prior plan, or what happens on success). No contradiction with annotations, but almost no behavioral context is added.

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, efficient sentence with no filler. It front-loads the primary purpose ('plan or set song tempo') and is appropriately sized for a tool with a straightforward function. However, it omits important contextual information, so while concise, it is also under-specified.

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?

Given the tool has five parameters, a two-phase plan/confirm flow, and no output schema, the description should explain the intended workflow. It does not mention that dryRun returns a plan requiring confirmation, nor what the tool returns. For an agent to use this correctly, it must rely entirely on the schema, which is insufficient for understanding the full contract.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter usage or the plan/confirm interaction; it only restates that tempo is within a range, which the schema already specifies. Baseline 3 applies because schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 plans or sets song tempo within an accepted range. It is specific about the verb and resource, though it doesn't differentiate from siblings because no sibling directly handles tempo setting. The mention of Live's accepted range is redundant with schema bounds but not misleading.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor when to use the plan (dryRun) versus the confirm (set) flow. The schema hints at the dry-run/confirmation pattern, but the description does not explain the decision process. An agent must infer usage from the schema alone.

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