take_set_pitch

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It discloses that there is no time change, that REAPER clamps extremes, supports half-semitone floats, and that pitch quality depends on the per-take pitch shift mode setting, with a recommendation for vocals. This is adequate behavioral context.

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 concise (~120 words) and well-structured: a one-line summary, paragraphs on usage, quality settings, and a clean Args block. Every sentence adds value, no 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 tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, parameter details, range, and behavioral notes on pitch shift mode. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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%, but the description explains all three parameters in the Args section: item_index as global 0-based, semitones as float with range, and take_index as 0-based or -1 for active. It adds meaning not in the schema, such as range for semitones and the purpose of each parameter.

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 'Pitch-shift a take by N semitones (no time change)' and explains the use case 'The core of tune a chop to a chord tone'. It uses a specific verb+resource and distinguishes from siblings like take_set_playrate and take_set_reversed.

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 description gives explicit guidance on when to use (tuning a chop to a chord tone) and how to use (positive/negative values, range, half-semitones). It does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use, but the context strongly implies differentiation from other tools.

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