transport_set_tempo

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly signals mutation with 'Set' and adds a concrete side-effect fact: the change goes through processRECEvent and registers in undo history. It does not mention range validation, but for a simple setter this is a reasonable level of transparency.

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 short sentences with no filler. The action is front-loaded, and the implementation note about undo history is the only additional detail, earning its place as useful behavioral context.

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 one-parameter setter with no output schema and no annotations, the description is largely complete: what is set, in what unit, and one important behavioral side effect. It is slightly shy of a 5 because it omits any note about accepted tempo limits or effect on running playback, but these are minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 for the lone 'bpm' parameter. It clarifies that the parameter is in BPM and is the project tempo, which is helpful, but it does not specify valid ranges, decimal support, or clamping behavior. This is minimally adequate.

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 states a specific verb ('Set'), resource ('project tempo'), and unit ('BPM'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also stands apart from siblings like transport_tap_tempo and transport_set_playback_speed because it names the exact project-level property being changed.

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 action is self-explanatory, and the mention of 'proper undo history' hints at when this wrapper should be preferred. However, it never explicitly distinguishes this tool from alternatives like transport_tap_tempo or other tempo-related tools, so usage guidance remains implied rather than stated.

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