set_clip_pitch_fine

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral load. It only states the action and range, omitting details like out-of-range handling, destructiveness (mutating clip), side effects, or required permissions. The range constraint is helpful but insufficient.

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 concise sentence, front-loading the action and resource. However, it sacrifices completeness for brevity; a slightly longer description including parameter roles would be more useful.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with no annotation support, the description is incomplete. It lacks explanations of how clip identity is resolved (track+clip indices), the meaning of 'fine' vs 'coarse', and success/failure indicators. The output schema exists but is not described.

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 description must compensate. It explains the 'cents' parameter and its range, but provides no meaning for 'track_index' or 'clip_index', which are essential for identifying the target clip. This is a significant gap.

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 action (set fine pitch transposition) and the resource (a clip) with a specific unit (cents) and range (-50.0 to 50.0). It implicitly distinguishes from the sibling 'set_clip_pitch' by the 'fine' qualifier, but does not explicitly differentiate.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_clip_pitch or set_clip_gain. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it.

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