tempo_clear_all

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses the destructive nature (deletes markers), clarifies what it does NOT affect (base BPM), and implies no other side effects. This is sufficiently transparent for a simple parameterless 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?

Two short sentences convey all necessary information. Each sentence serves a purpose: the first states the action and result, the second clarifies a common misconception. No fluff.

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 simple tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers all needed context: what it does, what it doesn't do, and a pointer to an alternative tool. It is fully sufficient for an AI agent to select and invoke 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?

The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100% (empty). Baseline is 4, and the description adds no parameter info because none is needed. The description focuses on the tool's action rather than parameters.

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 action ('Delete every tempo/time-sig marker') and the effect ('resets the project to its base tempo'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like tempo_add_marker and tempo_delete_marker by using specific verb+resource phrasing. The added note about not changing base BPM further clarifies its scope.

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 explicitly indicates when to use this tool (when you want to clear all markers and reset to base tempo) and provides a direct alternative: 'use `transport_set_bpm` for that' to change the base tempo itself. This offers clear guidance on choosing between tools.

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