Configure the tempo-sync plugin

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

With no annotations, the description carries the whole burden and does it well: the plugin re-reads every 0.5 s, values are saved with the show, null clears a key, resync sequences must already exist, and reported problems after the change are returned. It also discloses a hard rejection case and a bridge-version prerequisite, which an agent could not learn from the schema.

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?

It is a single dense sentence-chained paragraph with zero filler, and the action verb plus read-back behavior are front-loaded. Readability suffers from the parenthetical stacking (bdstark/gma3-beat-sync; BeatSync.*, read every 0.5 s), but nothing is redundant.

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 13-parameter, zero-required, no-output-schema mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers defaults (presumably null = unchanged/clear), side effects, prerequisites, error behavior, and every parameter's domain. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly without opening the schema.

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 only 8% across 13 parameters, and the description compensates thoroughly: numeric ranges (master 1-16, quantum 1-64, lead_ms 0-200), the meaning of start_stop and resync formats, the actions array shape with slot/every/phase/command plus clear:true, and the null-clears-a-key convention. This adds real meaning beyond the bare JSON types.

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: 'Set or clear the tempo-sync plugin's configuration ... then read it back', naming the plugin, its backing store (BeatSync.* console variables) and the read-back. It does not explicitly name the sibling gma3_tempo_sync_status, so an agent must infer that the status tool is the pure-read alternative.

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 context: works whether or not the plugin runs, requires bridge 0.31.0, and explicitly excludes a tempting field ('Interfaces (multicast) is a network setting and is refused'). It stops short of stating when to prefer gma3_tempo_sync_status over this tool for read-only inspection.

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