set_tempo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Set BPM' implies a mutation (changing tempo), but the description doesn't reveal any behavioral traits—it doesn't state if this requires specific permissions, if changes are immediate or reversible, what happens to playback, or if there are side effects like affecting other parameters. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise at two words ('Set BPM'), with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded and directly states the tool's function without unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient for quick understanding.

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 complexity (a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool affects (e.g., a current pattern or track), the expected behavior, or return values. For a tool that likely changes system state, more context is needed to guide safe and effective use.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'bpm' parameter fully documented as 'Tempo in BPM'. The description 'Set BPM' adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, as it only reiterates the parameter's purpose without providing additional context like valid ranges, units, or effects. Baseline 3 is appropriate since 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 'Set BPM' clearly indicates the action (set) and the target (BPM/tempo), but it's vague about the broader context—it doesn't specify what system or resource the BPM is being set for (e.g., a music track, sequencer, or audio engine). Compared to siblings like 'detect_tempo' or 'play', it distinguishes its purpose as a configuration action, but lacks specificity about the affected resource.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., if a track must be loaded first), exclusions (e.g., not to use while playing), or related tools (e.g., 'detect_tempo' for reading BPM, 'play' for starting playback). Without such context, the agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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