Ref Retune

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that it writes pitch-shifted copies next to the originals, repoints the project at them, leaves timing unchanged, and preserves the source in reference.original. It stops short of stating permissions or an explicit undo path, but the preservation note effectively signals non-destructiveness.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the sentences are dense but each carries information (target pitch, effect on analysis tools, side effects, preservation). Slightly packed, but no wasted sentence.

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 needn't be explained. For a mutating tool with no annotations, the description adequately covers behavior, side effects, and preservation, leaving only minor gaps around parameter formats.

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 `cents` meaningfully (measures the offset when omitted, or accepts a supplied value), but the required `project` parameter is only implied by 'points the project at them' with no stated format or scope.

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 ('Retune'), the resource ('the reference and its stems'), and the target ('onto A440 for analysis'). It is immediately distinguishable from sibling analysis tools, which measure rather than modify 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?

Gives a clear triggering condition ('a record tens of cents off... makes every note read as a pair of semitones') and names the diagnostic that signals it ('analyze_grid prints the offset and says when to run this'). No explicit when-not or alternative tool is named, but the context is well supplied.

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