set_tempo

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. Merely stating 'Set the project tempo' reveals no side effects, constraints, reversibility, or prerequisites. It does not indicate what happens if bpm is out of range, whether the operation is destructive, or if any confirmation is needed.

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 a single, focused sentence of five words with no filler or repetition. Every word earns its place, and it is effectively front-loaded with the action and resource.

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?

Despite low complexity and a single parameter, the description is inadequate for a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation. It fails to explain what 'project tempo' means, what bpm values are acceptable, or what the caller can expect after execution. The presence of an output schema (implied) is not leveraged.

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%, yet the description adds no meaning to the single 'bpm' parameter. It does not explain that bpm stands for beats per minute, nor provide any range or format guidance. The parameter semantics are entirely unimplemented.

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 uses a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('project tempo'), clearly distinguishing from siblings like get_tempo (read) and set_time_signature (time signature). It is unambiguous and easily mapped to the intended action.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that get_tempo should be used for reading the current tempo or that set_time_signature is for a different concept. No explicit contextual clues or exclusions are given.

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