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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Set the tempo') but does not describe effects (e.g., immediate change, impact on playback), permissions needed, or error conditions (e.g., invalid BPM range). This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences: one for the purpose and one for parameters. It is front-loaded with the main action, though the parameter explanation could be integrated more smoothly. There is minimal waste, but it lacks structural polish.

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 one parameter, no annotations, and an output schema (which reduces need to explain return values), the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic action and parameter semantics but misses behavioral details and usage context, making it adequate but with clear gaps for a mutation tool.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by specifying 'tempo' as 'The new tempo in BPM', clarifying the parameter's purpose and unit. However, it does not provide details like valid ranges or constraints, leaving gaps despite 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 verb ('Set') and resource ('tempo of the Ableton session'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'start_playback' or 'stop_playback' that might also affect tempo indirectly, so it lacks sibling distinction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., session must be open), exclusions (e.g., cannot set tempo during playback), or related tools (e.g., 'get_session_info' to check current tempo), leaving usage context unclear.

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