Export a project to text or assembly

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

Annotations indicate idempotent and non-destructive behavior, which the description does not contradict. The description adds the fact that it returns a preview of the produced file, which is valuable behavioral context. However, it does not disclose whether the tool writes to the filesystem beyond the preview, or what happens on failure. Given annotations carry part of the burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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 and reasonably compact given the range of exporters listed. The most important info (what it does, preview return) is front-loaded. It could be slightly streamlined, but it avoids unnecessary fluff.

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?

With 8 parameters, no output schema, and only 13% schema coverage, the description does not adequately compensate. It leaves most parameters unexplained, does not describe the return structure beyond 'preview', and offers no guidance on parameter combinations or required dependencies. For a tool of this complexity, the description is incomplete.

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 only 13% (only outputPath described). The description lists the possible command values but does not explain any of the other seven parameters (songs, cleanup, maxBytes, asmFormat, project, projectPath). It also does not clarify how the command parameter maps to the listed exporters or how outputPath is used. The description adds almost no value to the schema's sparse information.

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 states a specific verb (convert/export), a resource (project), and the target formats (text or assembly). It lists concrete exporter commands, making its function unmistakable and distinguishing it from sibling tools like export_audio. The mention of 'verification and reading note data' adds context that further clarifies its niche.

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 partial guidance by noting that FamiStudio text is 'excellent for verification and for reading note data', which hints at a use case. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over siblings (e.g., export_audio) or when not to use it. There is no mention of alternative tools or exclusion criteria.

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