effect_change_pitch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does convey useful behavior: it targets 'selected audio' and guarantees tempo preservation, and explains semitone sign. However, it omits whether the effect is destructive/undoable or whether a selection is strictly required.

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 concise sentences plus a clean Args block. No filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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 one-parameter effect tool, it explains the action, the parameter, and the scope ('selected audio'). It lacks notes on prerequisites or return behavior, but no output schema is expected and the calling contract is otherwise clear.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by giving units ('semitones'), sign semantics ('negative = lower, positive = higher'), and hence the meaning of the default 0. This adds real value beyond the bare schema title.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Change the pitch of the selected audio' and adds the distinguishing constraint 'without changing tempo.' This clearly separates it from siblings like effect_change_tempo and effect_change_speed.

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?

'Without changing tempo' gives clear context for when to choose this tool over tempo/speed alternatives, even though no sibling name is explicitly mentioned and there is no when-not-to-use statement.

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