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. It discloses the position format and the optionality of position/time, but does not explain side effects, error conditions, or whether the change is reversible. This covers the basic operation but leaves behavioral details unstated.

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 well-structured with an Args section, each line earning its place. It uses examples to clarify formats without unnecessary fluff, making it both concise and informative.

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 setter tool with no annotations, the description covers all parameters and presents clear examples. It does not discuss return values (though an output schema exists) or project-level alternatives, but overall it provides sufficient context for basic use. A small gap is the lack of explicit distinction from set_project_time_signature, but the 'at specified position' phrase partially addresses this.

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?

The description thoroughly explains every parameter with examples (e.g., numerator/denominator in 4/4, position format '1:1,500'), fully compensating for the 0% schema description coverage. It adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema types.

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 states the tool sets a time signature at a specified position, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_project_time_signature that operate at the project level. The verb 'set' plus the resource 'time signature' and the scope 'at specified position' provide a precise purpose.

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 through the phrase 'at specified position' but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as set_project_time_signature. It does give usage guidance for parameters (position/time optionality) but lacks when-to-use versus sibling tools.

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