set_time_signature

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether this is a global or per-clip change, whether existing clips are retimed or altered, whether the change is reversible, or what the response looks like for a mutation tool.

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 short sentence that front-loads the verb and resource with no filler. It is efficient, though the example clause adds only marginal value given the schema's two-integer structure.

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 2-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is under-specified. It omits scope, side effects on existing material, and parameter format details an agent would need to invoke it correctly.

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 for the two undocumented required parameters. The examples '4/4, 3/4, 6/8' hint at the value space but could mislead an agent into passing a combined string, since the schema actually expects separate numerator and denominator integers; no ranges or validity constraints (e.g. denominator as power of two) are given.

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 and resource ('Set the song time signature'), which is clear enough for an agent to identify the operation. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the closely related sibling set_tempo, which also sets a global song-level musical property.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_tempo or clip-level settings. The phrase 'song time signature' weakly implies a global scope, but no prerequisites, exclusions, or sibling routing are provided.

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