Sync external clock (tempo)

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses specific side effects: 'All modes write the global tempo (op('/').time.tempo)' and explains the hardware-gated nature of Link/MIDI modes with fallback to the manual Bpm knob. This adds significant behavioral context not present in annotations.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence contributes: purpose, mode details, side-effect, and hardware gating. No redundant or filler content.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, modes, side effects, hardware dependencies, and relationship to downstream tools. It does not state return values, but no output schema exists and the tool's function is a side-effecting action (creating a container and setting tempo), so this gap is minor.

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 100%, with each parameter (bpm, mode, parent_path) already having detailed descriptions. The tool description largely restates the mode semantics and adds no new parameter-specific meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Lock the project tempo to a live source so beat-synced visuals follow the music.' It clearly distinguishes the tool by explaining the three modes and explicitly positions it as the source that create_tempo_sync and create_autopilot follow, differentiating it from sibling tools.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: to sync project tempo to a live source (tap, Ableton Link, MIDI clock). It names downstream consumers (create_tempo_sync, create_autopilot), but does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or enumerate alternative tools. This matches 'clear context, no exclusions'.

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