audio_bpmCacheSet

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only says 'store' but doesn't disclose whether it overwrites existing cache entries, any required permissions, or what happens on failure. The behavioral traits are largely absent.

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 one-sentence description is efficient and front-loaded, with zero filler. However, it is slightly under-specified, but the length itself is reasonable for a simple cache set operation.

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 5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is completely insufficient. It provides only a high-level purpose and omits essential context about parameter meanings, typical usage, and return behavior.

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%, and the description adds no meaning to the parameters. It doesn't explain 'source', 'confidence', 'analyzerVersion', or their relationship. The agent receives only parameter names and types with no elaboration.

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 'Store BPM analysis in cache for an audio file' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'audio_bpmGetCached' by indicating a write operation to cache.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like the getter. It doesn't mention typical workflows, prerequisites (e.g., file must exist), or when not to use it.

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