set_tempo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and parameter, but does not mention any side effects (e.g., whether playback continues), BPM range constraints, or whether the change is global. For a mutation tool, this lack of context leaves the agent without important safety or behavior information.

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 extremely concise: one sentence for the action and one line for the parameter. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, and the parameter definition is directly relevant. No unnecessary information is included.

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 setter with one parameter, the description covers the core functionality and parameter semantics. However, it lacks any mention of BPM range limits or side effects, and does not position the tool relative to tap_tempo. Given the simplicity, it is adequate but could benefit from a note on valid range or typical usage context.

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?

The schema provides a parameter named 'tempo' with type number, but no description. The tool description adds critical semantics: 'The new tempo in BPM'. This clarifies the unit and meaning, fully compensating for the 0% schema description coverage. While minimal, it is complete for the single parameter.

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's function: 'Set the tempo of the Ableton session.' The verb 'set' combined with the resource 'tempo' and the context 'Ableton session' is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from siblings like tap_tempo by explicitly defining the action as setting a numeric BPM value.

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 usage is implied by the action: the tool is used when the agent needs to set the session tempo to a specific BPM. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like tap_tempo, nor any mention of prerequisites or limitations. The lack of explicit exclusions or alternative references makes this only implicitly clear.

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