time_stretch

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

Annotations already declare this is not read-only, not idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by saying the operation is queued and uses the Rubber Band algorithm while preserving pitch. It does not discuss job handling or failure modes, but the key async and pitch-preservation traits are disclosed.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to conveying the operation, algorithm, and pitch-preservation behavior.

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?

With full schema descriptions, an output schema, and annotations covering safety traits, the description supplies the missing high-level context: queued processing and pitch preservation. It is nearly complete for this tool, though a brief note about it producing an asynchronous job could make the workflow clearer.

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 100%, so the schema already documents rate, audio_path, and output_dir in detail. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema baseline, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: queuing Rubber Band time stretching with pitch preservation. It is clear enough to distinguish from pitch_shift, though it does not explicitly name that sibling or other 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?

The phrase 'preserving pitch' implies the tool is appropriate when tempo should change without altering pitch, which contrasts with pitch_shift. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to use this rather than siblings like pitch_shift or separate_audio, and no when-not conditions are stated.

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