set_clip_pitch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the function and parameter examples (e.g., -2, 0, 3) but does not disclose side effects, range limits, or whether changes are immediate. As a setter, basic behavior is implied but not explicitly confirmed.

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 concise: one sentence stating purpose followed by a structured parameter list. It front-loads the key action and is easy to skim. No extra words, though parameter descriptions could be slightly more detailed without harming conciseness.

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 tool's simplicity (3 parameters, all required), the description covers the essential inputs but omits context like prerequisites (clip must exist on track) or return value. An output schema exists but is not described. The description is adequate but not comprehensive for a tool in a large sibling set.

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 each parameter: track_index and clip_index are 0-based, semitones is pitch shift with example values. This goes beyond the schema's bare types. However, it could specify allowed value ranges for semitones.

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 tool's action: 'Set the pitch transposition of a clip.' It uses a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('clip'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like set_clip_gain or set_clip_muted by focusing on pitch transposition. The parameter list reinforces the purpose.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., set_clip_pitch_fine). It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., clip must exist) or when not to use it. The agent must infer usage from context.

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