effect_change_pitch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It does explain that pitch changes without tempo and that high-quality stretching uses a slower SBSMS algorithm, but it omits critical behavioral traits: whether the change is destructive, whether it can be undone, what happens if nothing is selected, and whether the effect is applied permanently to the audio.

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?

Compact and efficient: a one-sentence purpose plus a clean parameter list. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundant boilerplate. The core behavior is stated first, followed by parameter details.

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 an effect tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not state prerequisites (e.g., selected audio), side effects (destructive vs. reversible), or what the operation returns. An agent could invoke it without knowing whether the change is permanent or whether it needs a selection.

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 carries full responsibility for parameter meaning. It does so excellently: semitones is explained with direction (negative = lower, positive = higher), and use_high_quality_stretching is clearly tied to the SBSMS algorithm and a performance tradeoff. Both parameters are fully clarified beyond the raw schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Change the pitch of the selected audio without changing tempo.' This clearly distinguishes the core function from generic edits. However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like clip_set_pitch or clip_reset_pitch, which may overlap in 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that the user must have audio selected, nor does it compare to clip_set_pitch or other pitch-related tools. The usage context is only implied by the phrase 'selected audio.'

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