polynodes_set_bpm

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds only that it returns JSON confirmation, which is minor and largely redundant given an output schema exists; it discloses nothing new about state changes or side effects.

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 core sentence is front-loaded and tight, but the 'Args: params: value.' and 'Returns: JSON confirmation.' blocks are boilerplate that consume space without adding information. Size is small, so the waste is proportionally notable rather than harmful.

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 setter with annotations covering safety and an output schema covering returns, the description states the action and valid range adequately. Only a note on effects timing or related tools is missing.

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 reported as 0%, so the description should compensate; it does restate the 10-300 range and the 'value' input inside 'params', but the schema's BPMInput already carries the same range constraint. The 'Args: params: value.' line is boilerplate that adds no semantics about units or behavior.

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?

States a specific verb + resource ('Set the sequencer BPM') with the valid range, which is enough to distinguish it from siblings like set_playback_rate or set_envelope_time. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from those siblings, but the resource noun is unambiguous.

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?

No when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the many polynodes setter tools. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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