set_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 well: it discloses the write side effect ('writes tempo in one undo step'), the validation boundary (20..999, non-finite rejected), and dry-run semantics ('validated but not committed'). It omits return value and any permission/authorization context, which keeps it short of a 5.

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-loaded purpose sentence followed by side effects, a concrete example, and edge cases in clearly labeled lines. Every sentence adds information; 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 simple two-parameter setter with no output schema, the description covers purpose, constraints, and dry-run behavior adequately. The only gap is what the call returns on success/failure, which is minor given the low complexity.

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: tempo is defined as BPM with an explicit valid range and rejection rule, and dry_run is explained as validate-without-commit. Both parameters gain meaning that the bare number/boolean schema does not convey.

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 and resource with unit: 'Set the Live Set tempo in BPM.' The scope (global Live Set tempo, not a device parameter) is unambiguous, and no sibling in the list performs the same operation, so an agent can select it without inspecting 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?

Usage is implied by the domain rather than stated: it never says when to prefer this over set_parameter_value or how it relates to playback/arrangement tools. The edge-case clause ('values outside 20..999 or non-finite values are rejected') is useful guidance, but there is no explicit when/when-not or alternative routing.

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