flat_export

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two meaningful behaviors: the supported output formats and the default destination (FLAT_EXPORT_DIR or ~/Downloads). It omits side-effect details an agent needs — whether files are overwritten, whether permission/ownership of the score is required, whose machine 'o computador' is, and whether a path is returned.

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 short lines, front-loaded with the action, then formats, then destination — every clause carries information. It is telegraphic rather than padded, though the missing subject of 'exporta' costs a little precision.

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, write-side-effect tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description leaves too much open: it never says what the return value is, what 'revision: last' means, or how score_id is resolved. Only the fmt/output_dir half of the parameter surface is addressed.

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%, and the description compensates for only part of it: it enumerates the valid fmt values (absent from the schema, which declares fmt as a bare string) and explains output_dir's default resolution. score_id and revision ('last') remain completely undefined in both schema and description.

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 action pair ('Exporta e salva no computador') and enumerates the export formats, which makes it distinguishable from siblings like flat_get_musicxml (fetch content) or flat_upload_revision (push a revision). The exported resource (a score) is only implied via the required score_id, and no sibling 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?

There is no when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as flat_get_musicxml for reading MusicXML inline. The only implied routing cue is 'saves to the computer', which the agent has to infer.

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