set_executor_speed

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

With no annotations provided, the description is the sole source of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool controls speed and returns a result message, without mentioning side effects, permission requirements, or what happens in error cases (e.g., missing executor).

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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. The docstring format efficiently conveys parameter details and return type. However, it could be slightly more streamlined by omitting the generic 'Args' and 'Returns' headers.

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?

The description covers the basic operation, parameters, and return type. It lacks details on valid speed values (e.g., if mode 'set' requires a separate parameter) and error handling. For a tool with 3 parameters and no annotations, this is adequate but not thorough.

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?

Although the input schema has no property descriptions (0% coverage), the tool's docstring explains each parameter beyond type information: executor_id as 'Executor number', mode with possible values 'set', 'half', 'double', and page as 'Optional page for page-qualified addressing.' This adds significant meaning.

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 controls an executor's playback speed and mentions 'live tempo matching,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_executor_rate or control_executor.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_executor_rate or when not to use it. The phrase 'live tempo matching' implies a specific context but does not clarify exclusions or preferred scenarios.

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