clip_reset_pitch_speed

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does state that both pitch and speed changes are reverted in a single call, which is the core behavior, but it does not elaborate on whether this resets to default values, whether it is reversible, or any side effects. Adequate but minimal.

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 extremely compact: one functional sentence plus a single parameter explanation. Every part earns its place, with no redundant phrasing or filler.

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 simple single-parameter tool, the description covers what the tool does and how to specify the target clip. It lacks details like error conditions or explicit confirmation of reset-to-default behavior, but the complexity is low enough that the description is reasonably complete.

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 defines 'key' as a string, but the description adds the important format detail: 'trackId:itemId'. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this compensation is valuable and gives the agent enough information to construct the parameter correctly.

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 action — 'Revert both pitch and speed changes on a clip in one call' — and clearly distinguishes this from siblings like clip_reset_pitch and clip_reset_speed by emphasizing the combined operation. The verb and resource are unambiguous.

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 'both pitch and speed changes... in one call' makes the use case clear: choose this when you need to reset both properties together instead of calling the individual reset tools. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is apparent.

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