Live Tempo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it states what gets re-rendered (clips from the change bar, earlier notes keep playing), the fallback behavior when renders aren't ready (change slides to a later bar and the reply names it), what follows the tempo (beat-synced effects), what is preserved (live_midi keys), and the destructive interaction (a change replaces any change queued at or after its bar).

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?

Front-loads the core action and core guarantee in the first clause, then moves through parameter behavior and side effects in a logical order. It is dense and slightly telegraphic ("at: when, in live_queue's words...") but nearly every sentence carries unique information.

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 live-tempo mutation with real-time fallback semantics, the description covers triggering, re-render scope, failure handling, effect follow-through, and queued-change replacement. An output schema exists, so the brief mention of reply contents is sufficient rather than redundant.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for three of four params: `at` gets accepted forms (next_bar, next_4, bar:N, now), `ramp_beats` gets an explicit status (not built), and `bpm` is implied by the tempo-change framing. `project` is never explained, leaving one gap at zero schema coverage.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource — "Change the running set's tempo" — plus the distinguishing guarantee "no restart and no gap," which separates it from staging tools like stage_set_load or live_start. An agent can tell exactly what this does without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear operational context (live set running, no restart) and an explicit exclusion with a workaround: "ramp_beats: not built; for a gradual change queue a few step changes at successive bars." It also points to live_status for pending changes, though it never names a sibling tool as the alternative for any other case.

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