clip_set_pitch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that the operation is non-destructive, processes no audio, is playback-time only, reversible, and can be permanently baked. This clearly sets expectations.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core behavioral distinction appears first, followed by only necessary argument details. No 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 two-required-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what the agent needs: what it does, the key format, the semitones meaning, and the related reset/render workflows. 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning for both parameters. It specifies the key format ('trackId:itemId' from track_get_info) and explains semitones as a pitch shift that can be negative.

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 operation—non-destructively changing one clip's pitch—and clarifies that it is a playback-time transform with no audio processing. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like effect_change_pitch or clip_set_speed.

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?

It provides clear context: use for non-destructive, per-clip pitch changes, and it names follow-up/reversal alternatives (clip_reset_pitch, clip_render_pitch_speed). However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with sibling pitch-changing alternatives such as effect_change_pitch or clip_set_speed.

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