Set transport

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutating but non-destructive operation. The description adds no further behavioral context: it does not disclose side effects of setting playing=true, whether recording overwrites data, how position changes affect other state, or whether changes are immediate. The description's list of settings is scope information, not behavioral transparency.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action verb and efficiently enumerates the affected settings. Every word earns its place, with zero wasted filler. It is appropriately concise for a setter tool, though this brevity comes at the cost of completeness.

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 tool has 11 parameters, no parameter descriptions, no output schema, and minimal annotations. A one-sentence description is grossly inadequate for this complexity. Critical details are missing, such as the units for positionStep and loop points, whether applying tempo/time signature changes affects existing audio, and how the various flags (playing, recording, metronome) interact. An agent cannot safely invoke this tool for nuanced tasks like setting loop points in musical bars based on the description alone.

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. It lists high-level categories (tempo, swing, loop, etc.) but does not map them to the actual parameter names, and it notably omits 'stepsPerBeat' entirely. The description gives no per-parameter meaning beyond what can be inferred from the property names, and it fails to clarify units (e.g., loopStart/loopEnd intervals) or relationships between params (e.g., time signature vs numerator/denominator).

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 uses the specific verb 'Change' and identifies the resource as transport settings, enumerating the affected domains (playback, recording, tempo, time signature, swing, metronome, position, loop). This gives a clear, concrete scope. While it doesn't explicitly contrast against sibling tools like set_steps or set_mixer, the mention of 'transport' is a well-understood DAW concept and the list effectively differentiates it from project-level or mixer-level settings.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply states what it changes. In the company of siblings like set_steps and set_mixer, there is potential for ambiguity (e.g., stepsPerBeat could be confused with a step sequencer tool), but the description does not clarify when set_transport is the appropriate choice or mention alternatives to consider.

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