change_speed

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only mentions speed change. It omits critical details such as whether the operation is destructive, whether audio pitch is preserved (despite the 'preserve_pitch' parameter), required permissions, or what the return value is. The agent cannot assess side effects or safety.

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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. However, it is too brief to be considered well-structured; it sacrifices completeness for brevity, leaving out essential context that would fit in a few more words.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain required vs optional parameters, expected return values, or limitations (e.g., supported speed ranges). The agent lacks enough context to use the tool 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?

Input schema coverage is only 20% (only 'speed' has a description). The tool description adds no meaning to the parameters beyond their names. For example, 'filepath', 'clip_id', 'preserve_pitch', and 'output_path' are not explained, leaving confusion about their formats and relationships.

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's purpose: 'Change clip playback speed (slow motion or speed up)'. It specifies the verb 'Change' and the resource 'clip playback speed', and the examples clarify the range of speed adjustments. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings, no other sibling tool appears to directly overlap in function.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'analyze_pacing' or 'generate_montage'. There are no prerequisites or exclusions mentioned, leaving the agent to infer the context 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.