clip_render_pitch_speed

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly communicates the irreversible nature, the fact that reset tools become ineffective after this operation, and the edit_undo alternative. This goes well beyond a generic action statement.

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 core action is front-loaded, followed by the critical caveat and fallback instruction, then the parameter spec. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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 single-parameter, irreversible audio-bake operation, the description gives the purpose, usage context, irreversibility warning, undo path, and parameter format. No output schema is needed for this fire-and-forget action, so nothing essential is missing.

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?

The schema only provides 'key' with type string and title 'Key', with no description. The tool description compensates fully by specifying the exact expected format: 'trackId:itemId' format for the clip's key.

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: 'permanently bake a clip's pitch/speed changes into its audio.' It also distinguishes itself from the non-destructive clip_set_pitch/clip_set_speed tools and from the reset tools, so an agent can tell it apart from its siblings.

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?

Explicitly says to use it once happy with a non-destructive preview from clip_set_pitch/clip_set_speed, warns that clip_reset_pitch/clip_reset_speed will no longer work, and directs the user to edit_undo as the fallback. This is clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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