set_tempo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that the operation writes and reads back the tempo, and mentions catalog validation with a numeric range. However, it doesn't discuss side effects, persistence, reversibility, or any session/context requirements.

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 description is compact and well-structured: a direct summary sentence, then an Args block, then a Returns block. Every sentence adds useful information and there is no filler.

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 one-parameter mutation tool with an output schema present, the description covers the action, the parameter's meaning and range, and the return shape. It could be more complete by noting whether the tempo applies globally, to a session, or to an arrangement, but the core invocation information is sufficient.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The Args section fully explains the single parameter: units (BPM), meaning (target tempo), and validated range (20.0 to 999.0). This goes well beyond the bare number type in the schema.

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?

The description clearly identifies the action ('Set') and the resource ('song tempo in BPM'), and adds the read-back behavior. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like set_parameter, but the tempo-specific scope makes the tool's purpose 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 guidance is given about when to use this tool rather than related tools such as set_mix or set_parameter. The usage is only implied through the tool name and short description, not explicitly stated with conditions or alternatives.

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