edit_set_tempo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clarifies that preserve_pitch does not actually shift audio pitch, which is a useful behavioral note. However, it does not disclose other potential effects (e.g., on tempo automation, playback, or whether changes are global).

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?

Two sentences with the main action first, followed by a clarifier. No wasted words; every sentence earns its place.

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 tool, it covers the core purpose and the only non-obvious parameter. Missing differentiation from tempo_set and any mention of return or side effects, but those are likely covered by the tool's simplicity. Could be more complete with usage guidance.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It explains preserve_pitch's informational nature, but does not add detail for bpm (units, range, required). bpm is self-explanatory from name and type, but the description could have stated units explicitly.

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?

States a clear action (change) and resource (project tempo). It distinguishes from audio_detect_tempo and edit_transpose by implication, but a sibling named tempo_set exists that appears similar; no explicit differentiation is provided.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like tempo_set. The description does not mention any exclusions, conditions, or alternative selection criteria.

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