mcp_opendaw_export_midi

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully mentions the underlying encoder, time division, and that a file is saved. However, it does not disclose edge-case behaviors such as whether an existing file is overwritten, what happens if the region is not found, or any error behavior. This is a moderate level of transparency.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a concise technical note, then a compact parameter list, and a one-line return-value note. Every sentence adds value and there is no padding, making it both informative and efficient.

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 4 required parameters, no annotations, and an output schema present, the description covers the essential operational context: what it exports, how parameters map to identifiers, and the return value. It does not discuss potential failure modes or file placement, but these are not critical for invoking the tool correctly. The description is complete enough for an agent to perform the task safely.

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?

The schema provides zero descriptions for its 4 parameters, but the description fully explains each one: filename (without extension), unit_index (-1 means search all AUs), track_index, and region_index (0-based). This directly compensates for the low schema coverage, giving the agent everything needed to provide valid values.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource statement: "Export a note region's notes as a standard MIDI file (.mid)." This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like import_midi (which imports instead) and export_mix (which exports audio formats). The purpose is unambiguous.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: when exporting a note region to a MIDI file. It also gives details about how to identify the region (unit_index, track_index, region_index). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like import_midi or export_mix, which prevents a 5.

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