set_voice_pitch

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description's 'absolute, not cumulative' note reinforces idempotency and is genuinely useful, but it says nothing about out-of-range handling (error vs. clamp) or whether the change applies live to running audio.

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?

One compact sentence separated by a semicolon: the core action and range come first, the absolute-vs-cumulative clarification second. No filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the sole parameter's range and semantics are covered. The only meaningful omission is what happens when a value outside -24..24 is supplied.

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 coverage is 0% and the single required parameter is undocumented in the schema, so the description must carry the burden. It supplies the unit (semitones) and the valid range (-24 to 24), which is exactly what's needed; only the out-of-range behavior remains unspecified.

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?

States a precise verb (set) plus the exact resource (the current RVC character's pitch offset) and its valid domain (-24 to 24 semitones). No sibling (set_voice_index_ratio, set_voice_bypass, etc.) could be confused with this operation.

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?

Usage is implied by the imperative 'set' against a clearly scoped resource, and the note that it is absolute rather than cumulative helps disambiguate behavior. However, it never states when to call this versus other voice-setting siblings or any preconditions (e.g., a model must be selected).

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