set_clip_pitch

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

The description mentions the valid range for pitch (-48 to +48 semitones) and that it sets the pitch shift. However, it does not disclose behavioral traits like side effects, error conditions (e.g., invalid indices), or whether the operation is reversible. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden but only partially addresses it.

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, consisting of a single sentence and a parameter list. There is no extraneous information, and every element is necessary.

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 simplicity of the tool and the lack of output schema, the description provides the essential parameters and range. However, it lacks contextual details such as expected behavior when the clip is not an audio clip, error handling, or return value. This is acceptable for a simple setter but could be improved.

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 0% description coverage, so the description compensates by listing each parameter with a brief explanation. It adds context for 'pitch' by specifying the range. However, it does not clarify indexing conventions (0-based or 1-based) for track_index and clip_index.

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 the pitch shift of an audio clip') which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from other clip manipulation tools like set_clip_gain or set_clip_loop by focusing on pitch.

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. There is no mention of preconditions, such as requiring the clip to be an audio clip, or when to prefer this over other pitch-related tools.

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