Export setlist to vault

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

Annotations already indicate non-readOnly and non-destructive. The description adds that it writes a note with a specific frontmatter format and requires a vault path. It does not mention that it only reads from the COMP and does not modify it, but this is implied by 'serialize' and the non-destructive annotation.

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 two sentences plus a brief explanation of the frontmatter format and re-import capability. It is concise, front-loaded with the main action, and every sentence adds value without 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?

Given the tool's complexity (4 params, no output schema), the description covers the workflow, prerequisites, parameter mappings, and linkage to sibling import_setlist. The agent has sufficient information to decide when and how to invoke the tool.

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?

All four parameters are documented in the schema with 100% coverage. The description further contextualizes each parameter (e.g., target as COMP, folder matching import_setlist, include_tempo capturing global tempo). This reinforces understanding beyond the 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?

The description clearly states the action (serialize cues into a setlist note), the resource (COMP managed cues, Obsidian vault), and the purpose (round-trip, git-diffable). It distinguishes from the sibling import_setlist by mentioning the round-trip workflow.

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 explains the tool's context: it exports cues from a COMP to a vault note for later re-import. It mentions the prerequisite TDMCP_VAULT_PATH. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or directly compare with alternatives beyond import_setlist.

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