als_export_midi

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds real behavioral detail: Live must be closed, output is one .mid per clip at set tempo, a default output directory applies, and the tool additionally estimates the key. It does not say whether existing files are overwritten or what happens if the target directory is absent.

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 with the core action front-loaded and the constraint immediately after. The trailing 'Also estimates the key' is a side effect tacked on at the end, slightly weakening structure but adding genuinely non-obvious information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the tool is a narrow 3-parameter offline export. Still missing: meaning/format of the required 'path', overwrite behavior, and whether the export directory is created automatically — gaps an agent would hit on first call.

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 compensate. It does explain two of three parameters — 'track filters by track name' and 'out_dir defaults to "<project>/MIDI Export"' — but the required 'path' parameter is never described (no indication it is the .als file, or its expected format). Partial compensation for a low-coverage 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 ('Export the MIDI clips of a saved Live Set as .mid files') plus output granularity ('one per clip, set tempo'). The phrase 'with Live closed' implicitly separates it from the live-session tools in the sibling list, but no sibling (e.g. prepare_export, list_exports) is named explicitly.

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 prerequisite 'with Live closed' and the 'saved Live Set' input strongly imply the usage context, but there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over prepare_export or the other export tools. The agent must infer the offline/file-based workflow from context.

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