fl_set_tempo

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the write nature is known. The description adds the behavioral detail that the tool verifies the BPM on a later FL idle tick, which is beyond the annotations and useful for understanding postconditions. It does not contradict any annotation and provides meaningful context.

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?

A single sentence that states the action, the precondition, and the verification step with no wasted words. The key information is front-loaded and every part 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?

Given the output schema exists and annotations cover the destructive nature, the description is largely complete. It includes the critical precondition (stopped) and the verification behavior. It does not discuss the concurrency guard or return values, but those are covered by schema and annotations, so nothing essential is missing.

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 each parameter already has a clear description in the schema. The tool description adds nothing about parameters (e.g., no clarification of 'expected_before' or 'session_fingerprint'), so it stays at the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('project tempo') and adds a key precondition ('while stopped'). It also mentions a verification step. While it doesn't explicitly name a sibling tool to distinguish from, the purpose is clear and specific enough that an agent can tell what the tool does.

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?

The description implies usage for setting tempo and notes the precondition 'while stopped,' which gives some contextual guidance. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, nor does it explain why 'while stopped' is required or how to sequence with other tools like reading tempo.

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