verify_tempo_map

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: a 1 ms tolerance, the reason it is not sample-exact, that it ignores the GUI dirty flag, and that song.tempo can lead the stopped playhead on ramps. These are meaningful caveats an agent needs.

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 lead sentence is well front-loaded, but it is followed by a stack of telegraphic fragment lines, one of which ('0.12 ms on a 278.36-second recording') is a hard-coded, context-specific detail that dilutes rather than sharpens the guidance. Some notes earn their place (tolerance, dirty flag); others read as leftover engineering log.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the description supplies the tolerance and preconditions a verification tool needs. It is nearly complete, with the only gap being explicit routing against the read/write/apply tempo-map siblings.

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 100% and both parameters are described (saved .als copy, unwarped non-looping clip). The description adds only marginal framing ('unwarped reference clip', 'persisted tempo map') over what the schema already documents, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (compare) and two concrete resources (unwarped reference clip duration vs. the persisted tempo map), so an agent can tell this apart from read_tempo_map / write_tempo_map / apply_tempo_map. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the verification framing is 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?

Usage is implied (verify persisted tempo map against a reference clip) and one precondition is given (save the opened copy first). However it never explicitly states when to choose this over read_tempo_map or apply_tempo_map, nor what a failure means, so guidance is only partially covered.

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