set_master_pitch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals the core state-changing operation and the constraint range (-12 to +12 semitones), which is useful, but it does not mention side effects, persistence, or whether this affects playback/rendering immediately.

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 minimal and well-structured: a clear one-line purpose statement followed by a single parameter explanation. There is no redundant or unnecessary content.

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 one-parameter setter, the description covers the purpose and parameter semantics well. The output schema exists, so return-value details are not needed. The main gap is the lack of usage/side-effect context, but the tool is simple enough that this is a minor omission.

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 schema only says 'pitch' is an integer with no description. The description compensates by explaining the parameter meaning ('Pitch offset in semitones') and its valid range (-12 to +12), providing exactly the semantic information an agent needs.

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 ('Set') and the target resource ('the master pitch offset'), making it easy to distinguish from siblings like set_master_volume or set_tempo. It is specific and uses a verb+resource structure, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus other setters, no mention of prerequisites, and no stated effect on the current project. The intended usage is only implied by the tool name and the verb in the description.

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