add_tempo

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it adds a tempo marking and returns success status, without detailing side effects (e.g., overwriting existing tempo), error conditions, or whether it modifies the score in place.

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 well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, followed by Args, Returns, and Examples. It is front-loaded with the key action and contains no redundant or irrelevant information.

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's simplicity (2 parameters, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (which covers return values), the description is largely sufficient. It includes examples and parameter constraints. Minor gaps exist, such as clarifying the scope of the tempo addition (e.g., current selection), but these are not critical.

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 has 0% coverage, so the description must compensate. It provides meaningful details: bpm range (20-400) and example text values ('Allegro', 'Andante', 'Presto'). This adds significant context beyond the schema's type-only definitions.

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 'Add a tempo marking,' which is a specific verb+resource pair. It unambiguously distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_articulation, add_dynamics, etc., by specifying the musical element it handles.

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 implicitly conveys usage through its name and purpose, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. other add_* tools or when not to use it. No alternatives are mentioned.

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