transport_tap_tempo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does reveal a non-obvious trait: a single event does not directly set BPM, it accumulates. However, it leaves unspecified how accumulation is measured, when it resets, and whether any value is returned, so transparency is partial.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with a parenthetical that adds the important accumulation nuance. Every word contributes meaning; no filler.

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 parameterless event-sending tool, the description is nearly complete: it states the action and the key behavioral caveat. It could mention reset conditions or the lack of a meaningful return value, but those 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema already exhaustively documents the call shape. Per the baseline guidance, no additional parameter explanation is needed.

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 names a specific verb ('Send') and resource ('tap-tempo event') and clarifies the semantics with 'accumulates to set BPM', which distinguishes it from direct-tempo sibling transport_set_tempo. An agent can immediately tell what this tool does and how it differs.

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 usage pattern: send one or more tap events to accumulate toward a tempo. It does not explicitly state when to choose this over transport_set_tempo or mention any exclusion/reset conditions, so the guidance is only implied.

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