channel_set_pitch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It reveals the core mutation and the range constraint, but does not mention side effects, return behavior, validation behavior, or whether the change is persistent. Still, the range provides some behavioral value beyond the raw schema.

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 compact sentence with the essential operation and range in parentheses. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the missing meaning of the required 'index' parameter is a significant gap. The description is barely adequate for someone to invoke the tool correctly without additional context.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'semitones' is a value in the range -120..120, but says nothing about what 'index' refers to or how the channel is identified, leaving a required parameter underspecified.

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 uses a specific verb ('Set') and precise resource ('channel pitch offset'), and adds the unit and valid range ('semitones (-120..120)'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like channel_set_volume or channel_set_pan.

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?

The intended use is implied: call this when the agent needs to adjust a channel's pitch. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or any preconditions such as whether the channel index must be valid.

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