fl_set_channel_pitch

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

Annotations already communicate that this is mutating (readOnlyHint=false) and destructive (destructiveHint=true). The description adds the concrete mutation and the normalized/semitone readback, but it does not disclose any extra side effects, irreversibility, or how the optional guards affect execution.

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?

One compact sentence with no filler: it states the action and the readback in a front-loaded way. Every word earns its place.

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 4-parameter setter with full schema coverage and an output schema, the core operation is clear. However, it lacks context about when to set pitch in a workflow, how it interacts with open-world state, or what the optional guards protect against beyond what the schema already says.

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 all parameters including channel_index, pitch_normalized range, expected_before, and session_fingerprint. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond naming the pitch resource, so the baseline 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 names a specific verb ('Set'), a precise resource ('normalized channel pitch'), and the additional readback behavior. This is enough to distinguish it from sibling setters like fl_set_channel_mix, fl_set_channel_solo, or fl_set_plugin_param.

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 given on when to use this tool versus the many other fl_set_* tools, nor are preconditions stated such as the project being loaded or the channel index being valid. The only usage signal is the tool name and schema.

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