set_tempo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the action but not the effects (e.g., whether the change is immediate, affects playback, or is reversible). There is no mention of side effects, rate limits, or safety concerns. The description is too minimal for a mutating tool.

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 very short and front-loaded with the main action. The 'Parameters' section is somewhat redundant with the schema, but it is the only place where the parameter meaning is explained. It earns its place with the BPM detail, so no waste.

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 tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and parameter meaning. It does not explain the return value, but setters typically return nothing meaningful. It lacks context like tempo constraints or side effects, but the tool's simplicity keeps the gap small.

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 only defines 'tempo' as a required number, providing no semantics. The description adds that tempo is 'The new tempo in BPM,' which gives essential units and meaning. This compensates for the 0% schema coverage, making the parameter sufficiently clear.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Set the tempo of the Ableton session.' This clearly identifies the tool's action and target, and distinguishes it from sibling tools that set other session properties (e.g., set_track_name, set_master_volume). It leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, though there are no direct alternatives for setting tempo. The intended use is implied by the description, but it lacks context such as session state requirements, allowable tempo ranges, or relationships to other tools like metronome or playback controls.

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