Export draft

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

Annotations declare non-readonly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, and the description adds real behavioral detail beyond them: save:true writes to ~/.lineupify/exports/ and explicitly 'never elsewhere'. It does not explain what overwrite does or what happens to an existing file, which is the remaining behavioral gap.

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?

Two dense sentences that lead with the formats, then the transfer rationale, then the save behavior. No filler, though the transfer-tool sentence is somewhat long and could be trimmed.

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 4-parameter export tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description covers formats, the practical use case, and the file-write destination. The missing pieces are the overwrite parameter's behavior and whether save:false returns content inline, which are modest gaps.

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 must carry the load. It explains the semantics of the format enum values ('links' = one track URL per line, 'text' = 'Artist - Title' per line) and the save flag's destination, but says nothing about overwrite and gives no format for draftId. Roughly half the parameters are clarified.

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 (return/export) and resource (the draft) and enumerates the five output formats, so an agent knows exactly what it produces. It is distinguishable from read-oriented siblings like get_draft by the export framing, though it never names a sibling to sharpen the contrast.

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?

Gives concrete guidance on format selection: 'links' and 'text' are what TuneMyMusic/Soundiiz accept, which explains the transfer workflow. It stops short of stating when to prefer this over get_draft or what to do if no draft exists, but the context is clear.

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