edit_export_midi

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose side effects. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it modifies the Edit, or whether it overwrites existing files. This leaves important behavioral traits unclear.

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 relatively brief but includes some redundancy: the format details are stated twice ('One MIDI track per Edit MIDI track' and 'Format-1 SMF with the Edit's tempo + time signature in track 0' repeat the same facts). Still, it stays focused and clear overall.

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?

The description gives good context for the output format and use case, but fails to explain the required parameter, leaving the agent without the information needed to construct a valid call. It is adequate for high-level intent but incomplete for execution.

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 only parameter, out_path, has no schema description and the tool description never mentions it. The agent cannot infer what value to provide (file path, filename, extension, etc.), making this a critical gap.

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 clearly states the tool exports all MIDI clips from the current Edit to a Standard MIDI File, with specific output format details. This distinguishes it from other edit export tools like edit_export_chord_chart.

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 useful output details (one MIDI track per Edit track, Format-1 SMF, tempo/time signature in track 0) but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling export tools or when it should not be used.

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