automation_record_tempo

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does state that the MCP will 'sequence them live' and use 'REC flags to create a real automation clip,' which explains the core side effect. However, it does not disclose whether existing tempo automation is overwritten or appended, whether recording requires a running transport, or whether the operation is destructive or undoable.

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 short, front-loaded with the core purpose, and uses only three sentences to cover the action, the parameter format, and the expected recording behavior. Every sentence contributes essential information without filler or fluff.

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 single-parameter automation tool with no annotations or output schema, the description is largely complete: it defines the input data, describes the recording mechanism, and names the target. It lacks only explicit guidance on preconditions or when the tool should be avoided, which keeps it from being fully complete.

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 provides only 'points' as an array of untyped objects with additionalProperties true, so the description carries nearly the full burden for parameter meaning. The description compensates well by defining points as a list of {time_bars: float, bpm: float}, giving both key names and types, though it leaves the exact meaning of time_bars implicit.

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 'Record an automation ramp on the master tempo,' which combines a specific verb, resource, and target. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like automation_record_channel_volume and automation_record_mixer_volume by naming the master tempo as the automation target.

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 implies the use case: record tempo automation when you want a ramp on the master tempo. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives such as transport_set_tempo or the other automation_record_* tools, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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