set_tempo_map

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and adds useful context: one undo step, items remaining at their bar positions, and separation from set_tempo. It does not mention permissions or error cases, but for a DAW mutation tool with rich schema documentation this is solid behavioral disclosure.

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?

Three tight sentences with zero waste; the core action and its examples are front-loaded, followed by key constraints (one undo step, bar positions, set_tempo boundary). Every sentence earns its place.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with a fully described nested schema and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, undo behavior, positional invariance, and the relationship to set_tempo. Additional detail on reading the map or failure modes would be nice but is not essential for correct invocation.

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 100%, and the nested TempoChange fields are well documented with examples, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description adds only high-level examples (ramps, odd-meter) that mirror the schema, fitting the baseline 3 for high 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?

States specific verbs (adds, changes, removes) and resource (tempo and time-signature changes), and distinguishes the scope from set_tempo by noting that the starting tempo is set there instead. An agent can tell it apart from siblings like get_tempo_map and set_tempo 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?

Clearly indicates the situations it covers (tempo jumps, ramps, odd-meter bars) and explicitly routes the initial tempo to set_tempo. It does not, however, explicitly mention get_tempo_map for reading, which is the natural alternative for inspection.

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